similar to: Poor network performance

Hello, I have no queue configured on tap and veth devices, quest type is of course KVM and I’m using virtio model for VM’s NIC. What we found is that on Xenial (where performance is poor) during test ovs-vswitchd process is using 100% CPU and there are some messages in ovs logs: 2017-05-12T14:22:04.351Z|00125|poll_loop|INFO|wakeup due to [POLLIN] on fd 149

On 05/12/2017 11:02 AM, Sławomir Kapłoński wrote: > Hello, > > I have some problem with poor network performance on libvirt with qemu and openvswitch. > I’m using libvirt 1.3.1, qemu 2.5 and openvswitch 2.6.0 on Ubuntu 16.04 currently. > My connection diagram looks like below: > >

Hello, I am currently working on Redhat 6 - Kernel 2.6.32-358.el6.x86_64. It has by default libvirt 0.10.2. I wanted version 1.2.7. So I downloaded this and libvirt-1.2.7.tar.gz and I followed the following steps: 1. ./configure (with its default settings) 2. make 3. make install Currently, the installation is in: /usr/local and the source tree is in /export/home/libvirt. I stopped the

Hello, Did You try to run autogen.sh with "--system" flag before doing "make"? As it is described in http://libvirt.org/compiling.html - maybe that would help You. -- Best regards / Pozdrawiam Sławek Kapłoński slawek@kaplonski.pl On Sun, 23 Oct 2016, Marina Danial wrote: > Hello, > > I am currently working on Redhat 6 - Kernel 2.6.32-358.el6.x86_64. It has >

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:03:31AM +0000, Anton Ivanov wrote: > > > On 11/02/2020 10:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 07:42:37AM +0000, Anton Ivanov wrote: > > > On 11/02/2020 02:51, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2020/2/11 ??12:55, Anton Ivanov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 07:42:37AM +0000, Anton Ivanov wrote: > On 11/02/2020 02:51, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On 2020/2/11 ??12:55, Anton Ivanov wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 09/12/2019 10:48, anton.ivanov at cambridgegreys.com wrote: > > > > From: Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov at cambridgegreys.com> > > > > > > >

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 07:42:37AM +0000, Anton Ivanov wrote: > On 11/02/2020 02:51, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On 2020/2/11 ??12:55, Anton Ivanov wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 09/12/2019 10:48, anton.ivanov at cambridgegreys.com wrote: > > > > From: Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov at cambridgegreys.com> > > > > > > >

Hi, I''m doing some test on a network 10 gb nics and xen with version 3.1 i''m measuring 2.5 gb/sec from domU to an external physical machine with iperf. switching to 3.2 has reduced the measured performance to 40-50 Mb/sec. did anything change in the network interface? can someone help me? thanks _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list

Hello list, I have two differents installation Xen Hypervisor on two identical physical server, on the same switch : The problem is on my new server (Xen 4.0.1 with pvops kernel 2.6.32.24), I have bad performance on bandwidth I have test with a files copy and "iperf". Result iperf average: Transfert Bandwidth XEN-A -> Windows

Reposting from xen-users (no response) I''m having a problem with: http://pastebin.com/CuGHqwhy It occurs on the reboot, but sometimes, when I try to start manually one of my machines. Sometime, one of the machines does not want to start permanently and I have to reinstall/restore it. This problem comes for me randomly, but maybe there is a trigger. I''ve tried to follow:

Ben Greear wrote: > Well, it seems we could and should fix veth to work, but it will have > to do equivalent work of copying an skb most likely, so either way > you'll probably get a big performance hit. Using the same pktgen script (i.e with clone=0) I see that a veth-->bridge-->veth configuration gives about 400K PPS forwarding performance where

Ben Greear wrote: > Well, it seems we could and should fix veth to work, but it will have > to do equivalent work of copying an skb most likely, so either way > you'll probably get a big performance hit. Using the same pktgen script (i.e with clone=0) I see that a veth-->bridge-->veth configuration gives about 400K PPS forwarding performance where

I recently upgraded a part of my network to Gigabit ethernet, basically between my Linux machine and my main windows machine, is now gigabit. The problem is that, and the whole reason I went with it, is to get faster speeds with samba. I've only been able to get 13.4 MB/s as a maximum transfer speed. I don't expect to be able to get 125 MB/s. If I use HTTP I can get around 18 MB/s,

Hi gluster users, I've spent several months trying to get any kind of high performance out of gluster. The current XFS/samba array is used for video editing and 300-400MB/s for at least 4 clients is minimum (currently a single windows client gets at least 700/700 for a single client over samba, peaking to 950 at times using blackmagic speed test). Gluster has been getting me as low as

On 3/13/19 2:26 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote: > IIUC, you are using the tap0 device, but it is not plugged anywhere. > By that I > mean there is one end that you created and passed through into the VM, > but there > is no other end of that.  I can think of some complicated ways how to > do what > you are trying to, but hopefully the above explanation will move you > forward

Am 2015-09-17 09:29, schrieb Pasi K?rkk?inen: > > Are you using nfs over UDP or TCP ? > TCP, but Network cant be the bottleneck, have tested it with iperf between bare metal/domU's and the nfs domU and it was perfectly fast... > > I don't think. > > > If you used NFS over UDP, try running it over TCP. no I use it over TCP... > > What does

G'day, I have a host running two kvm guests. One of them gets very poor network performance, testing with iperf I get ~10MBit/sec to guest A, >400MBit/sec to guest B (running iperf between the host/guest). Both guests are using the same bridge: Guest A: <interface type='bridge'> <mac address='54:52:00:75:24:91'/> <source

Hi Brandon, Can you please turn OFF client-io-threads as we have seen degradation of performance with io-threads ON on sequential read/writes, random read/writes. Server event threads is 1 and client event threads are 2 by default. Thanks & Regards On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Brandon Bates <brandon at brandonbates.com> wrote: > Hi gluster users, > I've spent several

Hi, I am using Xen 4.1.1 with Linux 3.0.1 kernel. Previously (Xen 3.4.4 and linux kernel 2.6.18) Xen by default created veth0 <--> vif0.0 pair in dom0. With Xen 4.1.1 these pairs are missing in dom0. Using command ''ip link add type veth'' I can create veth0 and veth1 but vif0.0 is still missing in dom0. (When new domU created I can see vif1.x created) Could you please help

Hi, I am using Xen 4.1.1 with Linux 3.0.1 kernel. Previously (Xen 3.4.4 and linux kernel 2.6.18) Xen by default created veth0 <--> vif0.0 pair in dom0. With Xen 4.1.1 these pairs are missing in dom0. Using command ''ip link add type veth'' I can create veth0 and veth1 but vif0.0 is still missing in dom0. (When new domU created I can see vif1.x created) Could you please help