Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey,
One all all-important thing I forgot to include was a comparison with
lguest :-)
Hey Mark,
This patch set is really great! I guess the hard part now is deciding
what all we want to apply. Do you have a suggestion of which patches
you think are worth applying?
BTW, do you have native and guest loopback numbers to compare where we
stand with native?
netperf, 10x20s runs (Gb/s) | guest->host | host->guest
-----------------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------
KVM | 4.230/ 4.619/ 4.780/ 0.155 | 8.140/ 8.578/
8.770/ 0.162
lguest | 5.700/ 5.926/ 6.150/ 0.132 | 8.680/ 9.073/
9.320/ 0.205
ping -f -c 100000 (ms) | guest->host | host->guest
-----------------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------
KVM | 0.199/ 0.326/ 7.698/ 0.744 | 0.199/ 0.245/
0.402/ 0.022
lguest | 0.022/ 0.055/ 0.467/ 0.019 | 0.019/
0.046/89.249/ 0.448
So, puppies gets you an extra 1.3Gb/s guest->host, .5Gb/s host->guest
and much better latency.
I'm surprised lguest gets an extra 1.3gb guest->host. Any idea of where
we're loosing it?
Actually, I guess the main reason for the latency difference is that
when lguest gets notified on the tx ring, it immediately sends whatever
is available and then starts a timer. KVM doesn't send anything until
it's tx timer fires or the ring is full.
Yes, we should definitely do that. It will make ping appear to be a lot
faster than it really is :-)
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Cheers,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
