Anthony Liguori wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> The ne2k is pretty mmio heavy. You should be able to observe a boost >>> with something like iperf (guest=>host) I would think if this is a >>> real savings. >>> >>> >> If we're just improving ne2k, the complexity isn't worth it. We have >> two better nics which are widely supported in guests. >> > > Sure, but the ne2k should be pretty close to an optimal synthetic > benchmark for batching. If we don't see a big improvement with it, > we're probably not going to see a big improvement with it for anything. >
I disagree. If there are other inefficiencies in ne2k, they will mask any performance improvement from batching. So whatever result we get will be inconclusive. I don't expect any massive performance improvement except for splash screens. I'll be happy to settle for a few percent with e1000 or scsi or ide. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
