On Wed, 8 May 2013 22:51:58 +0200 Frank Mehnert <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 May 2013 22:31:37 Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > On Wed, 8 May 2013 22:02:11 +0200 > > > > Frank Mehnert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wednesday 08 May 2013 21:50:05 Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > > > On Wed, 8 May 2013 21:11:03 +0200 > > > > > > > > Frank Mehnert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday 08 May 2013 20:41:40 Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > > > > > Alexey, please ask yourself why noone answers questions about the > > > > > > networking... We _do_ comparison and I have not seen vbox with > > > > > > multi-cpu guest-to-guest reaching > > > > > > > > > > > > [ 5] local 192.168.4.83 port 5001 connected with 192.168.4.23 port > > > > > > 49808 [ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 5.47 GBytes 4.69 Gbits/sec > > > > > > > > > > > > (vmware iperf example) > > > > > > > > > > > > ... and I really like vbox. > > > > > > > > > > Please don't give up. :) Bad performance with networking in SMP > > > > > guests is a known issue and there is work going on to fix several > > > > > related bugs. > > > > > > > > > > Frank > > > > > > > > Hi Frank, nice to read you. > > > > > > > > I did not read the corresponding code so far, but it sounds reasonable > > > > to me that using one queue per guest cpu with affinity should let it > > > > fly. > > > > > > It's a bit more complicated :) > > > > > > Frank > > > > Have you tried? :-) > > No, because we are aware of other problems which we want to fix first. > > Frank Hope you don't waste time with distro-kernels' problems already solved in stock ;-) Give 3.9 a try. -- Regards, Stephan _______________________________________________ vbox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.virtualbox.org/mailman/listinfo/vbox-dev
