Hi Mike, Glad to hear that your networks are up now, but what are you using to connect/bridge them? Those response times are horrible across the board!
All my VMs are connected to my internal network via a bridge on the host through their tap interfaces and a few lucky machines share another bridge that is on my DMZ with static IPs. I think the network bridge method I use is based on some stuff I picked up a few years ago when working with the UML virtualization stuff. I see sub millisecond ping responses in both directions and to all VMs (usually I've got 3 or 4 active, soon to expand to a few more). My HOST config is similar though I've got a only 4GB of memory and I'm still running KVM-52 modules. My guests are Ubuntu 7.10, Fedora 8, and FreeBSD 6.2 at the moment with Mint4.0 and JeOS on the drawing board. Lynn Kerby San Martin, CA On Dec 4, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Mike wrote: > Hello, > I already spoke to Izik Eidus. He told me to publish the results to > the > problem at the mailinglist. > > Some time ago I wrote to the kvm-devel mailinglist that I had a > problem > with my guests' networking dying. > I got the hint to change the network card emulation. That worked. > > Now I noticed a strange behaviour. > I have a gameserver running in a guest os. No problems on performance > side, really fast. > The only thing, when I make a ping test after unspecific time > periods I > get this: (this peaks are even there if the gameserver isn't running) > > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=241ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=382ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=397ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=647ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=857ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=1156ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=692ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=604ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=188ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=57 > > This ping peaks are on *all* guests I'm currently running. > I did a ping test the same time to the Host, with this result: > > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.169: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=57 > > As you can see, no peaks. > Example of start command from a guest: > kvm -hda apache.img -hdb apache_storage.img -m 512 -boot c -net > nic,vlan=0,macaddr=00:16:3e:00:00:01,model=rtl8139 -net tap -nographic > -daemonize > > Here the pings from the guest started with the command line listed > above: > > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=363ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=368ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=972ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=673ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=1133ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=1198ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=1881ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=2341ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=2401ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=2006ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=2638ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=3590ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=383ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.171: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > > So I tried disabling kvm when starting a guest. > and here the guest *with* -no-kvm in the command line: > > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > Reply from 195.24.77.170: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57 > > The other guest, without -no-kvm have the ping peaks. Also here, no > ping > peaks from the host. > Server load is really really low at the moment of the tests. > > Maybe you have an idea where this peaks are coming from? > I'm using KVM-55 on Ubuntu 7.10 server with Kernel Linux A050 > 2.6.22-14-server #1 SMP Sun Oct 14 22:09:15 GMT 2007 x86_64 GNU/Linux. > My CPU is an AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (Dual Core) with 8GByte of RAM. > > Greetings from Luxembourg. > Mike Weimichkirch > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 > _______________________________________________ > kvm-devel mailing list > kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
