Mike wrote: > Avi Kivity schrieb: > >> Mike wrote: >> >>> Sure, >>> here the ping results from the host to the guest atm of the peaks: >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=347 ttl=64 time=10.6 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=348 ttl=64 time=11.6 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=349 ttl=64 time=11.6 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=350 ttl=64 time=465 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=351 ttl=64 time=455 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=352 ttl=64 time=349 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=353 ttl=64 time=314 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=354 ttl=64 time=483 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=355 ttl=64 time=871 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=357 ttl=64 time=1889 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=358 ttl=64 time=1635 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=359 ttl=64 time=1973 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=360 ttl=64 time=1796 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=361 ttl=64 time=1961 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=362 ttl=64 time=2029 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=363 ttl=64 time=1994 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=364 ttl=64 time=1689 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=365 ttl=64 time=932 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=366 ttl=64 time=899 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=367 ttl=64 time=752 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=368 ttl=64 time=860 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=369 ttl=64 time=483 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=370 ttl=64 time=244 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=371 ttl=64 time=7.89 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=372 ttl=64 time=5.98 ms >>> 64 bytes from postfix (195.24.77.173): icmp_seq=373 ttl=64 time=6.31 ms >>> >>> The peaks started @ +/- 14:53:39 and ended @ +/- 14:53:59 >>> You can download the trace file at: >>> http://www.eliteserver.biz/trace2.tar.gz >>> >>> >>> >>> >> The traces show that the periods of latency correspond to floods of >> broadcast packets on the network >> >> >>> 10 29895 14:53:25 >>> 9 29895 14:53:26 >>> 9 29895 14:53:27 >>> 9 29895 14:53:28 >>> 16 29895 14:53:29 >>> 19 29895 14:53:30 >>> 19 29895 14:53:31 >>> 14 29895 14:53:32 >>> 13 29895 14:53:33 >>> 12 29895 14:53:34 >>> 205 29895 14:53:35 >>> 203 29895 14:53:36 >>> 276 29895 14:53:37 >>> 234 29895 14:53:38 >>> 234 29895 14:53:39 >>> 243 29895 14:53:40 >>> 234 29895 14:53:41 >>> 259 29895 14:53:42 >>> 228 29895 14:53:43 >>> 325 29895 14:53:44 >>> 242 29895 14:53:45 >>> 271 29895 14:53:46 >>> 251 29895 14:53:47 >>> 227 29895 14:53:48 >>> 178 29895 14:53:49 >>> 166 29895 14:53:50 >>> 271 29895 14:53:51 >>> 244 29895 14:53:52 >>> 287 29895 14:53:53 >>> 196 29895 14:53:54 >>> 215 29895 14:53:55 >>> 83 29895 14:53:56 >>> 65 29895 14:53:57 >>> 10 29895 14:53:58 >>> 9 29895 14:53:59 >>> 10 29895 14:54:00 >>> 14 29895 14:54:01 >>> 14 29895 14:54:02 >>> 12 29895 14:54:03 >>> 13 29895 14:54:04 >>> 16 29895 14:54:05 >>> >> The first column is the number of packets delivered at the time in the >> third column. The broadcast packets are clearly visible in the trace >> as having \xff in the first 6 bytes of the packet. The ping packet is >> getting queued behind the broadcasts and thus delayed. >> >> However, kvm is capable of much more than 200 packets/sec. I get >> about 6500 here with a flood ping. Can you try this on the host: >> >> ping -f -q guest-ip >> >> Hit ctrl-C after a second or two and send the output. >> >> You can also try running wireshark on the host to capture the >> broadcast packets. Maybe they cause some processing on the guest and >> slow it down. >> >> > 9066 packets transmitted, 9055 received, 0% packet loss, time 1956ms > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.078/0.171/16.659/0.181 ms, pipe 2, ipg/ewma > 0.215/0.213 ms > > The same time a tried a ping over the internet. No peaks. > > I also tried over a longer time, no peaks. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > I also saw the similar problem. However, it happens with I have several KVM guests running and sharing the same network bridge. If just one single KVM guest, then everything works fine.
Simon ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
