Re: [Xen-users] Xen Performance

[Fasiha Ashraf <feehapk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am facing the same issue. Bridging (the default mode) is better and simple way for network set-up. But Fajar! the strange thing in my case is i don't find this virbro while running ifconfig in my dom0. instead i have peth0 acting as vif for dom0.
Is there any issue with building xen with pv kernel, while using FC11 platform where virtualization is enabled? since i compiled and build xen using a platform where i have enabled virtualization at fc11 installation time.

Regards,
Fasiha Ashraf

--- On Tue, 13/10/09, Fajar A. Nugraha <fajar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Fajar A. Nugraha <fajar@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Xen Performance
To: "Igor S. Pelykh" <kesha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, 13 October, 2009, 7:00 AM

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Igor S. Pelykh <kesha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello xen-users,
>
> How can I to increase performance of network layer?
> And what is better (easy) for topology of DomU network (bridge, route,
> NAT )?

IMHO for network setup it's easier to use bridge. That you manage your
dom0 (network-wise) the same way you manage your L2 or L3 switch. When
you need NAT, you can use bridge + NAT (which is what libvirt does
with virbr0).

Performance-wise, I didn't have to do any tweaking with RHEL5. domU
can easily saturate uplink, with domU <-> domU throughput in the range
of 2-3 Gbps. Some people have reported problems (search the list
archive) with recent pv_ops dom0 kernel.

--
Fajar

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

---

 Connect more, do more and share more with Yahoo! India Mail.  Learn more.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users