search for: netperfs

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

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 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel

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 bytes bytes

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 bytes bytes

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

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:33:58 -0700 xiangxia.m.yue at gmail.com wrote: > From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue at gmail.com> > > This patch improves the guest receive and transmit performance. > On the handle_tx side, we poll the sock 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

First, I apologize if this message has been received multiple times. I''m having problems subscribing to this mailing list: Hi xen-users, I am trying to decide whether I should run a game server inside a Xen domain. My primary reason for wanting to virtualize is because I want to isolate this environment from the rest of my server. I really like the idea of isolating the game server

"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

"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

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? > >

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? > >

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 _______________________________________________ Xen-users

Folks, I''m playing with maxbw on links (as opposed to flows) in Crossbow, 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

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 -> dom0 is more. The value which I specified are consistent values. Is

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 06:12:55PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 03:15:29PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:13:24PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:37:37PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > Michael pointed out that the virtio-vsock draft specification does not > >

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 06:12:55PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 03:15:29PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:13:24PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:37:37PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > Michael pointed out that the virtio-vsock draft specification does not > >

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Matt Garman <matthew.garman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Larry Martell <larry.martell at gmail.com> wrote: >>> At any rate, what I was looking at was seeing if there was any way to >>> simplify this process, and cut NFS out of the picture. If you need >>> only to push these files around, what

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

Hi everyone. I am running Samba 3.2.0-22.1 (as packaged by OpenSUSE in 11.0) on a storage server connected to multiple windows based clients over a gigabit ethernet link. The server is a quad core Intel CPU and is equipped with an Intel e1000 based gigabit ethernet controller and plugged into a common gigabit ethernet switch with the windows clients. I am seeing performance issues on transfers

> > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Sorry for the delay, had some problems with my mailbox, and I realized > > just now that > > my reply wasn't sent. > > The vm indeed ALWAYS utilized 100% cpu, whether polling was enabled or > > not. > > The vhost thread utilized less than 100% (of the other cpu) when polling > > was disabled. >