I was trying to do some performance testing between using iSCSI on the
host as a diskfile to a guest vs the VM guest using the iSCSI device
directly.
However, in the process of trying to establish a baseline performance
figure, I started increasing the MTU settings on the PCI-express NICs
with RTL
On 06/23/2011 01:28 PM, Tim Nelson wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> I was trying to do some performance testing between using iSCSI on the
>> host as a diskfile to a guest vs the VM guest using the iSCSI device
>> directly.
>>
>> However, in the process of trying to establish a baseline per
On 6/24/11, Tim Nelson wrote:
> Realtek NICs are known to be some of the poorest interfaces available. A
> quality Intel or Broadcom NIC will set you back very little in terms of
> cost. Just replace it and be done. :)
I was afraid that might be the case (already had two Intel NICs in the
shoppin
Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> Does anybody know of a proven solution or is the Realtek chip itself
> irrevocably broken/bugged that anything above the default 1500 will
> simply not work?
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos
- Original Message -
> I was trying to do some performance testing between using iSCSI on the
> host as a diskfile to a guest vs the VM guest using the iSCSI device
> directly.
>
> However, in the process of trying to establish a baseline performance
> figure, I started increasing the MTU
Tim Nelson wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> I was trying to do some performance testing between using iSCSI on the
>> host as a diskfile to a guest vs the VM guest using the iSCSI device
>> directly.
>>
>> However, in the process of trying to establish a baseline performance
>> figure, I st
- Original Message -
> I can not say I had any problems with Realtek NIC's. I operate a small
> WISP and I am active in StarOS wireless network reouter community.
> Most
> of us there agree that when you have problems with NICS like 3Com or
> even Intel, you can always use Realtek NIC's for
On Friday, June 24, 2011 01:20 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> First bottleneck was discovering the max MTU allowed on these is 7K
> instead of 9K but googling seems to indicate that the RTL8168B is only
> capable of 4K frames.
Yeah, the 8168C goes up to 7k. Some 8168B go up to 6k.
>
> I assumed
On 6/24/11, Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Friday, June 24, 2011 01:20 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
>> First bottleneck was discovering the max MTU allowed on these is 7K
>> instead of 9K but googling seems to indicate that the RTL8168B is only
>> capable of 4K frames.
>
> Yeah, the 8168C goes up t
On Friday, June 24, 2011 02:33 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> On 6/24/11, Christopher Chan wrote:
>> On Friday, June 24, 2011 01:20 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
>>> First bottleneck was discovering the max MTU allowed on these is 7K
>>> instead of 9K but googling seems to indicate that the RTL81
Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Friday, June 24, 2011 02:33 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
>> On 6/24/11, Christopher Chan wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 24, 2011 01:20 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
First bottleneck was discovering the max MTU allowed on these is 7K
instead of 9K but googling se
On Friday, June 24, 2011 05:06 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Christopher Chan wrote:
>> On Friday, June 24, 2011 02:33 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
>>> On 6/24/11, Christopher Chan wrote:
On Friday, June 24, 2011 01:20 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> First bottleneck was discovering
On 6/24/11, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Try ElRepo driver and please report if that helps. I would like to know
> your experience with ElRepo driver.
The ElRepo driver appears to work, I don't get an error when
increasing the MTU but I'll need to solve another problem before I can
really test a
On 06/23/2011 10:20 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> I assumed 4K would still be better than nothing but unfortunately
> bumping up the MTU to anything else but 1.5K caused the file transfers
> (using NFS for easy testing), to hang at random points or more
> accurate slow to a crawl.
I don't know a
On 6/26/11, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> I don't know anything specifically about those cards, but you'll see
> that behavior on any card unless all of the hosts on a broadcast domain
> are using the same MTU. You need to set all of the devices on a LAN
> segment, including the router, to the same MT
Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> Ironically, even at 1500MTU, I was able to hit the full 100+ MB/s
> speed available on a single Gigabit link so it seems my experiment was
> a bit futile.
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.or
On 06/25/2011 12:05 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
>
> Default Driver -> ElRepo driver
> 1500 MTU -> 3000 MTU = OK
That's not going to be reliable. Sooner or later, you'll see the mount
hang (any transfer may) if your MTUs don't match.
___
CentOS mail
On Jun 25, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> Ironically, even at 1500MTU, I was able to hit the full 100+ MB/s
> speed available on a single Gigabit link so it seems my experiment was
> a bit futile.
Jumbo frames don't give higher throughput, but lower CPU.
I find standard frames gi
On 6/26/11, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 06/25/2011 12:05 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
>>
>> Default Driver -> ElRepo driver
>> 1500 MTU -> 3000 MTU = OK
>
> That's not going to be reliable. Sooner or later, you'll see the mount
> hang (any transfer may) if your MTUs don't match.
Thanks for the
On 6/26/11, Ross Walker wrote:
> Jumbo frames don't give higher throughput, but lower CPU.
>
> I find standard frames give better throughput for 4K block sizes like one
> typically finds with file systems.
>
> You really don't need to go to jumbo frames until you reach 10Gbps speed.
This was pre
Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> Now the question is whether the overheads reduction, even at sub-10GBs
> speeds, may be significant if the host/guest are VMs instead of actual
> physical machines.
If you are going to use it on virtual interfaces, I would think it would
help, especially if you have
21 matches
Mail list logo
