[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-users] Release 0.8.0 of GPL PV Drivers for Windows
- To: "jim burns" <jim_burn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Emre ERENOGLU" <erenoglu@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:50:13 +0100
- Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:50:50 -0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=LYhVuq78dOz2rWr9omnCOX6VLVB96w3E+7mul+G2fDxEebKtXnvgZ+xoT1q6Eg6rcAfJTgx/r/9GDqlzdTVtRpVxLwogB6lvsQTpeXZOUnWX09aqfQ297zX51SJ3DsHxkZ/t+d6gCYZxdseSP81DeKLAR9oa9j9IurmPatLp3YE=
- List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the test, great to have this information. I'm really wondering the performance of the "unmodified_drivers" in the xen package, which can be compiled in a "HVM Linux DomU" to get Paravirtual Drivers for disks and ethernet card.
When I tested these on Xen 3.1 on Pardus Linux DomU, I was getting very similar performance on -disks- with hdparm. No other "reliable" tests were performed. I also didn't test the network card.
Emre
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 3:21 PM, jim burns < jim_burn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday 28 February 2008 06:07:00 am Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> I can recommend iperf too.
>
> Make sure you use the same iperf version everywhere.
Ok, here's my results.
Equipment: core duo 2300, 1.66ghz each, sata drive configured for UDMA/100
System: fc8 32bit pae, xen 3.1.2, xen.gz 3.1.0-rc7, dom0 2.6.21
Tested hvm: XP Pro SP2, 2002
Method:
The version tested was 1.7.0, to avoid having to apply the kernel patch that
comes with 2.0.2. The binaries downloaded were from the project homepage
http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/#download. For linux, I chose the 'Linux
libc 2.3 binary and (on fc8 at least) I still had to install the
compat-libstdc++-33 package to get it to run.
The server/listening side was always the dom0, invoked with 'iperf -s'. The
first machine is a linux fc8 pv domu, the second is another machine on my
subnet with a 100Mbps nic pipeline inbetween, and the rest are the various
drivers on a winxp hvm. The invoked command was 'iperf -c dom0-hostname -t
60'. '-t 60' sets the runtime to 60 secs. I used the default buffer size
(8k), mss/mtu, and window size (which actually varies between the client and
the server). I averaged 3 tcp runs.
For the udp tests, the default bandwidth is 1 Mbps (add the '-b 1000000' flag
to the command above). I added or subtracted a 0 till I got a packet loss
percentage of more than 0% and less than 5%, or an observed throughput
significantly less than the request (in other words, a stress test). In the
table below, 'udp Mpbs' is the observed, and '-b Mpbs' is the requested rate.
(The server has to be invoked with 'iperf -s -u'.)
machine | tcp Mbps| udp Mbps| -b Mbps | udp packet loss
fc8 domu | 1563 | 48.6| 100 | .08%
on subnet| 79.8| 5.4| 10 | 3.5%
gplpv | 19.8| 2.0| 10 | 0.0%
realtek | 9.6| 1.8| 10 | 0.0%
Conclusions: The pv domu tcp rate is a blistering 1.5 Gbps, showing that a
software nic *can* be even faster than a 100 Mpbs hardware nic, at least for
pv. The machine on the same subnet ('on subnet') achieved 80% of the max rate
supported by the hardware. Presumably, since the udp rates are consistently
less than the tcp ones, there was a lot of tcp retransmits. gplpv is twice as
fast as realtek for tcp, about the same for udp. 19.8/8 = ~2.5 MBps, which is
about the rate I was getting with my domu to dom0 file copies. I don't expect
pv data rates from an hvm, but it should be interesting to see how much
faster James & Andy can get this to go. Btw, this was gplpv 0.8.4.
Actually, pretty good work so far guys!
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
-- Emre Erenoglu erenoglu@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|