I'm wondering what the difference would be between the standard slow e1000 virtual network card and the fast paravirtualized vmxnet3 virtual network card. In theory, the latter one should be much, much faster..
-- With kind regards, Angelo Höngens Systems Administrator ------------------------------------------ NetMatch tourism internet software solutions Ringbaan Oost 2b 5013 CA Tilburg T: +31 (0)13 5811088 F: +31 (0)13 5821239 mailto:a.hong...@netmatch.nl http://www.netmatch.nl ------------------------------------------ > -----Original Message----- > From: Les Stroud [mailto:l...@lesstroud.com] > Sent: woensdag 27 oktober 2010 21:55 > To: Ariel > Cc: haproxy > Subject: Re: VM benchmarks > > Check out this thread I had earlier in the month on the same topic: > http://www.formilux.org/archives/haproxy/1010/3910.html > > Bottom line: vmware will slow down your upper level transaction limit > by a significant amount (like an order of maginitude). The software > drivers underneath the network stack and the system stack add enough > overhead to reduce your maximum transaction ceiling to around 6000 > trans/sec on haproxy (this is without a backend constraint). On a > hardware device, I am seeing much higher numbers (50k). > > LES > > > On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Ariel wrote: > > > Does anyone know of studies done comparing haproxy on dedicated > hardware vs virtual machine? Or perhaps some virtual machine specific > considerations? > > -a >
