search for: 10us

...to be available and read from the linux server. The PPD files do contain one which is specific to my printer and has worked on another machine. -----Original Message----- From: Blake Patton [mailto:pattonb@spots.ca] Sent: May 31, 2002 11:32 AM To: WEBSTER, Greg Subject: RE: [Samba] I will pay you $10US (via Paypal) out of my own pocket if you can solve this CUPS & Samba problem. that looks ok, simply click ok and load the printer driver from whichever os version you are using. ie go get the latest drivers for the printer you want to use and the os you have on the workstation. simpy those pr...

Seriously. I can't afford to be down much longer or I'm going to be in serious trouble. Running Redhat 7.2. Here's the scoop: Cups is installed and running. Samba is installed and running and is sharing files properly to 100+ people. I can print a test page from the Cups web-interface. I can print a test page by "cat foo | lpr" or "cat foo | lpr.cups" no

Hi, I have been doing some diskIO bench-marking of dom0 and domU (HVM). I ran into an issue where domU performed better than dom0. So I ran few experiments to check if it is just diskIO performance. I have an archlinux (kernel 3.5.0) + xen 4.2.2) installed on a Intel Core i7 Q720 machine. I have also installed archlinux (kernel 3.5.0) in domU running on this machine. The domU runs with 8 vcpus.

...Max snoop latency: 71680ns Max no snoop latency: 71680ns Capabilities: [258 v1] L1 PM Substates L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+ PortCommonModeRestoreTime=255us PortTPowerOnTime=10us L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2- PCI-PM_L1.1- ASPM_L1.2- ASPM_L1.1- T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=0ns L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=10us Capabilities: [128 v1] Power Budgeting <?> Capabilities: [420 v2] Advanced Error Reporting...

...not impact the performance even when we failed to mask the notification. Anyway for consistency I fixed rx routine as well as tx. Performance numbers: - Bulk transfer from guest to external physical server. [Guest]->vhost_net->tap--(XDP_REDIRECT)-->i40e --(wire)--> [Server] - Set 10us busypoll. - Guest disables checksum and TSO because of host XDP. - Measured single flow Mbps by netperf, and kicks by perf kvm stat (EPT_MISCONFIG event). Before After Mbps kicks/s Mbps kicks/s UDP_STREAM 1472byte...

...not impact the performance even when we failed to mask the notification. Anyway for consistency I fixed rx routine as well as tx. Performance numbers: - Bulk transfer from guest to external physical server. [Guest]->vhost_net->tap--(XDP_REDIRECT)-->i40e --(wire)--> [Server] - Set 10us busypoll. - Guest disables checksum and TSO because of host XDP. - Measured single flow Mbps by netperf, and kicks by perf kvm stat (EPT_MISCONFIG event). Before After Mbps kicks/s Mbps kicks/s UDP_STREAM 1472byte...

Hi there, If I may keep this short, I would like your permission to use the drivers: ISOLINUX and MEMDISK, ISO 9660/El Torito CD-ROMs bootloader, to make a FreeDOS bootable CD-ROM. I plan to distribute the CDs for troubleshooting purposes and to cover my costs i plan to sell them for $10US each. I noticed that the most of the troubleshooting Cds are breaking copyright licensing so I wanted to keep it all legal. Regards, Reece George __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

Interested in building a speex codec (basically audio <-> speex <-> data stream) using TI's small MSP430 microcontroller. Is there any way to estimate feasibility based on CPU requirements? Example - speex is happily encoding on an old Pentium-1 processor (166 MHz) using about half the CPU (as reported under Linux); the TI microcontrollers are much slower yet (8-16-25 MHz) and

...-(wire)--> [Server] > > Just to confirm in this case since zerocopy is enabled, we are in fact > use the generic XDP datapath? For some reason zerocopy was not applied for most packets, so in most cases driver XDP was used. I was going to dig into it but not yet. > >> - Set 10us busypoll. >> - Guest disables checksum and TSO because of host XDP. >> - Measured single flow Mbps by netperf, and kicks by perf kvm stat >> ?? (EPT_MISCONFIG event). >> >> ???????????????????????????? Before????????????? After >> ?????????????????????????? Mbps?...

...-(wire)--> [Server] > > Just to confirm in this case since zerocopy is enabled, we are in fact > use the generic XDP datapath? For some reason zerocopy was not applied for most packets, so in most cases driver XDP was used. I was going to dig into it but not yet. > >> - Set 10us busypoll. >> - Guest disables checksum and TSO because of host XDP. >> - Measured single flow Mbps by netperf, and kicks by perf kvm stat >> ?? (EPT_MISCONFIG event). >> >> ???????????????????????????? Before????????????? After >> ?????????????????????????? Mbps?...

...en we failed to mask the > notification. Anyway for consistency I fixed rx routine as well as tx. > > Performance numbers: > > - Bulk transfer from guest to external physical server. > [Guest]->vhost_net->tap--(XDP_REDIRECT)-->i40e --(wire)--> [Server] > - Set 10us busypoll. > - Guest disables checksum and TSO because of host XDP. > - Measured single flow Mbps by netperf, and kicks by perf kvm stat > (EPT_MISCONFIG event). > > Before After > Mbps kicks/s Mbps kicks/...

...ht, just to confirm this. This is expected. In tuntap, we do native XDP only for small and non zerocopy packets. See tun_can_build_skb(). The reason is XDP may adjust packet header which is not supported by zercopy. We can only use XDP generic for zerocopy in this case. > >>> - Set 10us busypoll. >>> - Guest disables checksum and TSO because of host XDP. >>> - Measured single flow Mbps by netperf, and kicks by perf kvm stat >>> ?? (EPT_MISCONFIG event). >>> >>> ???????????????????????????? Before????????????? After >>> ?????...

This is problem 1 of 3 problems we are having with live migration and/or ACPI on Xen-4.3 and Xen-4.2. Any help would be appreciated. Detailed description of problem: We are using Xen-4.3-rc1 with dom0 running Ubuntu Precise and 3.5.0-23-generic kernel, and domU running Ubuntu Precise (12.04) cloud images running 3.2.0-39-virtual. We are using the xl.conf below on qemu-upstream-dm and HVM and

...t; > Performance numbers: > > - Bulk transfer from guest to external physical server. > [Guest]->vhost_net->tap--(XDP_REDIRECT)-->i40e --(wire)--> [Server] Just to confirm in this case since zerocopy is enabled, we are in fact use the generic XDP datapath? > - Set 10us busypoll. > - Guest disables checksum and TSO because of host XDP. > - Measured single flow Mbps by netperf, and kicks by perf kvm stat > (EPT_MISCONFIG event). > > Before After > Mbps kicks/s Mbps kick...

...Tx performance is greatly improved by this change. I don't see notable performance change on rx with this series though. Performance numbers (tx): - Bulk transfer from guest to external physical server. [Guest]->vhost_net->tap--(XDP_REDIRECT)-->i40e --(wire)--> [Server] - Set 10us busypoll. - Guest disables checksum and TSO because of host XDP. - Measured single flow Mbps by netperf, and kicks by perf kvm stat (EPT_MISCONFIG event). Before After Mbps kicks/s Mbps kicks/s UDP_STREAM 1472byte...

Hi, On 8/31/23 13:18, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 11:04:06AM +0200, Thomas Hellstr?m (Intel) wrote: >> Hi! >> >> On 8/30/23 17:00, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 03:42:08PM +0200, Thomas Hellstr?m (Intel) wrote: >>>> On 8/30/23 14:49, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>>>> Hi Thomas, >>>>>

Dear best guys, I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer rates, after I went out and bought a pair of Intel GigaBit Ethernet Cards to solve my performance problem (*laugh*): (In short, see *** below) Tests were done with two Intel GigaBit Ethernet cards (82547EI, 32bit PCI Desktop adapter MT) connected directly without a switch/hub and "device