search for: netperf

Le 16/08/2010 19:20, Rick Jones a écrit : > Klein Stéphane wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I''ve two computer : >> * A : it''s a server with a firewall >> * B : an computer on internet >> >> I''ve installed netserver on host A. >> I use netperf on host B. >> >> On host B, I launch : >> >> $ netperf -H host_A_address_IP >> >> If I stop the firewall on host A, all work great. >> It isn''t work when firewall is enabled. >> >> In filewall rules, I''ve opened default netserv...

Hi all, the throughput measured by netperf differs from time to time. The changeset was xen-unstable.hg C/S 11760. This is observed when I executed a netperf on DomU connecting to a netserver on Dom0 in the same box. The observed throughput was between 185Mbps to 3854Mbps. I have never seen such a difference on ia64. Regards, Hiroya...

box. I'll send an updated KVM tools patch in a bit as well. Before: # netperf -H 192.168.33.4,ipv4 -t TCP_RR MIGRATED TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.33.4 (192.168.33.4) port 0 AF_INET : first burst 0 Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes byte...

box. I'll send an updated KVM tools patch in a bit as well. Before: # netperf -H 192.168.33.4,ipv4 -t TCP_RR MIGRATED TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.33.4 (192.168.33.4) port 0 AF_INET : first burst 0 Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes byte...

Hi again, I keep posting about my problem with HTB -> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2005q3/016611.html With a bit of search I recently found the exact same problem I have in the 2004 archives with some graphs that explain it far better than I did -> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2004q4/014519.html and http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2004q4/014568.html

...ck receive queue at the > same time. handle_rx do that in the same way. > > We set the poll-us=100us and use the iperf3 to test Where/how do you configure poll-us=100us ? Are you talking about /proc/sys/net/core/busy_poll ? p.s. Nice performance boost! :-) > its bandwidth, use the netperf to test throughput and mean > latency. When running the tests, the vhost-net kthread of > that VM, is alway 100% CPU. The commands are shown as below. > > iperf3 -s -D > iperf3 -c IP -i 1 -P 1 -t 20 -M 1400 > > or > netserver > netperf -H IP -t TCP_RR -l 20 -- -O &quo...

...There will only be a single virtual machine, and I am for all practical purposes, the only person with access to the box. Anyway, the game server is more network intensive than CPU intensive, and that will be my primary criteria for decided whether I virtualize. I ran some naive benchmarks with netperf on my Dom0 (debian lenny w/ xen 3.2.1), DomU, and my Linux box at home. Dom0 and DomU are connected by a public network (100 Mbps link) and a private network (1 Gbps link). All netperf tests were run with defaults (w/o any extra options). Dom0 to Dom0 (local) TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0....

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote on 20/08/2014 01:57:10 PM: > > Results: > > > > Netperf, 1 vm: > > The polling patch improved throughput by ~33% (1516 MB/sec -> 2046 MB/sec). > > Number of exits/sec decreased 6x. > > The same improvement was shown when I tested with 3 vms running netperf > > (4086 MB/sec -> 5545 MB/sec). > > > > filebench,...

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote on 20/08/2014 01:57:10 PM: > > Results: > > > > Netperf, 1 vm: > > The polling patch improved throughput by ~33% (1516 MB/sec -> 2046 MB/sec). > > Number of exits/sec decreased 6x. > > The same improvement was shown when I tested with 3 vms running netperf > > (4086 MB/sec -> 5545 MB/sec). > > > > filebench,...

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 05:05:19PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > NFS and netperf are the first two protocols I looked > > > > at and both transmit address information across the connection... > > > > > > > > > Does netperf really attempt to get local IP > > > and then send that inline within the connection? > > > &g...

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 05:05:19PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > NFS and netperf are the first two protocols I looked > > > > at and both transmit address information across the connection... > > > > > > > > > Does netperf really attempt to get local IP > > > and then send that inline within the connection? > > > &g...

Hi, I''m not able to get netperf working for a virtual PCI(vif) domU. However, I''m able to get it working while doing pass-through I/O. I''m not sure what is the problem. However, I am able to ping the destination machine using the vif domU. Is there any port etc. that needs to be unblocked here. Regards, Asim _...

...ssbow, and I have a couple of questions. First, the limts seem only advisory. The first example has the main host talking to a zone that has 172.16.17.100 configured on znic0. When there is no maxbw, the throughtput is as expected; when maxbw is 55M the throughput only drops to 76 Mbps: # netperf -H 172.16.17.100 TCP STREAM TEST from ::ffff:0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to ::ffff:172.16.17.100 (172.16.17.100) port 0 AF_INET Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughpu...

Hi all, I used netperf to measure throughput between dom0 & domU. The throughput between dom0 -> domU was 256.00 Mb/sec domU -> dom0 was 401.15 Mb/sec. The throughput between dom0 & domU seems to be very asymmetry. To my surprise the throughput between domU -&gt...

...guest<->guest communication requires a virtio spec change. If packets contain source/destination CIDs then allowing/forbidding guest<->host or guest<->guest communication is purely a host policy decision. I think it's worth keeping that in from the start. > > NFS and netperf are the first two protocols I looked > > at and both transmit address information across the connection... > > > Does netperf really attempt to get local IP > and then send that inline within the connection? Yes, netperf has separate control and data sockets. I think part o...

...guest<->guest communication requires a virtio spec change. If packets contain source/destination CIDs then allowing/forbidding guest<->host or guest<->guest communication is purely a host policy decision. I think it's worth keeping that in from the start. > > NFS and netperf are the first two protocols I looked > > at and both transmit address information across the connection... > > > Does netperf really attempt to get local IP > and then send that inline within the connection? Yes, netperf has separate control and data sockets. I think part o...

.... > I'm certain I'm missing something, but the fundamental architecture > doesn't make sense to me given what I understand of the process flow. > > Were you able to run some basic network testing tools between the C6 > and C7 machines? I'm interested specifically in netperf, which does > round trip packet testing, both TCP and UDP. I would look for packet > drops with UDP, and/or major performance outliers with TCP, and/or any > kind of timeouts with either protocol. netperf is not installed. > How is name resolution working on both machines? Do you ad...

Hi all I''m hacking on a netback trying to identify whether TLB flushes causes heavy performance penalty on Tx path. The hack is quite nasty (you would not want to know, trust me). Basically what is doesn''t is, 1) alter network protocol to pass along mfns instead of grant references, 2) when the backend sees a new mfn, map it RO and cache it in its own address space. With this

...onsist of 2 6 disk raid5 sets with fast disks on them, running lvm and XFS for a filesysteem. I can do a dd of a multigigabyte file to /dev/null and get roughly 500-600 MB/'s transfer rates through the filesystem, so I don't think the raid array and file system is a bottleneck. I have run netperf tests between the server and the clients to see if I had some network plumbing problems. With default socket settings for netperf (8182 buffer size), I get about 300 mbps transfer rates between the clients and the server (which matches approximately the 30 MB/s transfer rates). With 65536 byte bu...

...any number of explanations besides polling > improving the efficiency. For example, increasing system load might > disable host power management. > Hi Michael, I re-ran the tests, this time with the "turbo mode" and "C-states" features off. No Polling: 1 VM running netperf (msg size 64B): 1107 Mbits/sec Polling: 1 VM running netperf (msg size 64B): 1572 Mbits/sec As you can see from the new results, the numbers are lower, but relatively (polling on/off) there's no change. Thank you, Razya > > > > -- > > > MST > > &gt...