CloudNetEngine vSwitch boosts performance for both NFV and cloud use cases in
technical preview update 3.For the details, please refer
to?http://cloudnetengine.com/en/blog/2015/09/05/cloudnetengine-vswitch-boosts-performance-cloud-an/
One key update:- CNE vSwitch is over 65% better than OVS-DPDK
Hi Mark,
Last time we discussed methodologies for vSwitch performance comparison, and
the performance data we published is more for typical TCP based applications in
virtualized data centers.Today we shared more data for small packet size
traffic
at?http://cloudnetengine.com/en/blog/2015/08/21/
Hi All,
Since?we?announced?CloudNetEngine?virtual?switch?technical?preview,?we?received?quite?a?few?very?good?suggestions/feedbacks?from?evaluation?customers,?thank?you?all!
Today?we?release?CloudNetEngine?vSwitch?technical?preview?update?1,?which?includes?a?number?of?performance?improvements?over
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 2:36 AM, Gray, Mark D wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I'd like to hope that's my methodology problem, but I just follow the
>> installation guide without any customization.
>>
>> Hi Mark, do you have any performance data share with us? Maybe we are
>> using different type of workloads
ss you are talking about NFV type of workload?
Thanks,
Jun
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 2:14 AM, Gray, Mark D wrote:
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: discuss [mailto:discuss-bounces at openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Jun
>> Xiao
>&
After CloudNetEngine vswitch technical preview is launched, we received quite
a few queries on vswitches performance comparison, but we cannot simply give a
test result on our platform because performance varies on different H/Ws and
different workloads, and that's why we encourage you to try the
s?for?now)
Cheers!
Jun?Xiao
www.cloudnetengine.com
On 02/19, Zhou Danny wrote:
> v4 changes:
> - Adjust position of new-added structure fields
>
> v3 changes:
> - Fix review comments
>
> v2 changes:
> - Fix compilation issue for a missed header file
> - Bug fix: free unreleased resources on the exception path before return
> - Consolidate coding
gt; less
> than IXGBE but that is probably because it a a port an not optimized.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Jun Xiao wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> Thanks for your great work on this!
>>
>> Could you elaborate on a few things:
>> - Wha
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your great work on this!
Could you elaborate on a few things:
- What's the methodology used in the driver porting?
e.g. what's the base source you ported from?
what's the major change against the base source?
- What kind of tests have been done on Linux? any known limit
It's not really CPU relevance but IOMMU fault, iommu=pt kernel option
solves the problem.
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Jun Xiao wrote:
> Sorry for the spam, I just noticed it's AMD cpu! Is it possible to
> make it fail quickly if dpdk cannot really work with AMD cpu?
>
&g
Sorry for the spam, I just noticed it's AMD cpu! Is it possible to
make it fail quickly if dpdk cannot really work with AMD cpu?
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jun Xiao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am running dpdk-1.6.0r1 with Intel 82599ES with some problems:
> - The test driver is
Hi,
I am running dpdk-1.6.0r1 with Intel 82599ES with some problems:
- The test driver is l2fwd, and it is started successfully without any
problem (all DEBUG build flags are enabled, but I didn't find anything
abnormal)
- l2fwd cannot see any packet generated by pktgen on another machine.
- The c
13 matches
Mail list logo
