similar to: Jumbo packets and xen

After successfully getting higher MTU to work on my Realtek NICs, I started testing the impact of higher MTU on file transfers using NFS exported ramdisk to ramdisk. The results were unexpected. The higher the MTU on the sending NIC, the lower the file transfer speed. I tested by using time cp to copy a 1GB file (In case compression might affect the results, so I dd the test file from the CentOS

Hi, Has anyone using CentOS 6 been able to successfully set an mtu larger than 9710 on an interface. I am seeing super jumbo frames with length > 10000. ... IP 10.79.4.53.64327 > 10.79.2.53.24294: Flags [.], seq 16060:29200, ack 1, win 32767, length 13140 ... CentOS release 6.7 (Final) Thanks, -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone:

On the network theme again. The adapters on the management/storage network all default to an mtu of 1500. Are there plans to be able to indicate when a network supports jumbo frames? Cheers, Justin.

Hello, I have 2 network cards on my 2 of my computers that I am trying to transfer data on. The second network cards are specifically for transferring files between the two so I enabled jumble frames by setting the mtu to 9000. I seem to be able to connect between the two via ssh and other methods using this setting so I thought everything was working right until I tried rsync. I used the

Hi, I have an XCP 0.5 box running a few DomUs some of the DomU''s data is stored at (clustered lvm volumes on) a Coraid etherdrive box which is connected via an Ethernet cable to a dedicated card of the XCP box, for which in the network config I'' ve specified: MTU=9344: xe network-param-list uuid=.... gives: MTU ( RW): 9344 on the DomUs if I leave the MTU at 1500 (default

The documentation says the bridge will work as far as all interfaces have the same MTU, but I also read on this and other mailing lists people having problems when using jumbo frames. What is the current status of jumbo frames support in the bridge? It could also be useful to have the same info on the wiki page. Thanks. -- Luca Lesinigo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

When using OCFS2 in a Oracle RAC set, one would configure OCFS2 to use the private interconnect address ( in cluster.conf). Are there any known issues / reasons not to have the private interconnect set up for jumbo frames when using in conjunction with OCFS2 ? Thanks -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, I am trying to get some information on if Xen 4.0 has native UEFI support. The roadmap http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenRoadMap has UEFI as a request. However, Xen 4.0 documentation does not make mention of UEFI. Thanks, Jason _______________________________________________ Xen-community mailing list Xen-community@lists.xensource.com

Hello, I am trying to get some information on if Xen 4.0 has native UEFI support. The roadmap http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenRoadMap has UEFI as a request. However, Xen 4.0 documentation does not make mention of UEFI. Thanks, Jason _______________________________________________ Xen-community mailing list Xen-community@lists.xensource.com

On 11/09/2015 12:36 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 11/09/2015 08:34 AM, Steve Clark wrote: >> Has anyone using CentOS 6 been able to successfully set an mtu larger >> than 9710 >> on an interface. > Maximum frame size varies from implementation to implementation: > http://pages.uoregon.edu/joe/jumbo-clean-gear.html > > It's also worth noting that that due to

I would like to use jumbo frame for local interfaces, but I am not sure in which order to set it up. Should it be set on the physical interface first, then on the bridge and on the guest, or in another way? On some servers there are configurations with vlan on the bridge

Hi everyone, I have looked through the list archives and seen a few posts about jumbo frame support, but there is no definitive answer on whether or not it has been tested or is working for anyone. I tried using an MTU of 9000 in a domU and encountered some very interesting and not-so-great results. My machines used in this test are: * NFS (physical) * dom0 (physical) * domU (virtual)

Hello all, Not sure if I am completely missing something but here goes. I have XCP 1.0 running without any issues. I have the mtu set on both the storage network, the corresponding PIF, and the VIF to 9000 and when displayed in ifconfig it shows that this is indeed true. I have several CentOs 5.6 VMs running in HVM mode (i.e. no xen kernel) which attach to the the storage network through these

Hi Ola, There was some code done by IBM a few years ago in conjunction with a University that worked and showed the benefits but AFAIK it was never integrated into Xen. The research paper is around on the web. A few of us requested RDMA migration support for version 4.0 and it is at the top of the request list, I suspect it is probably a case of enough people asking and Citrix approving.

I was trying to do some performance testing between using iSCSI on the host as a diskfile to a guest vs the VM guest using the iSCSI device directly. However, in the process of trying to establish a baseline performance figure, I started increasing the MTU settings on the PCI-express NICs with RTL8168B chips. First bottleneck was discovering the max MTU allowed on these is 7K instead of 9K but

Hi, Increasing MTU beyond 1500 in Linux dom0 results in ooopses. I did not find any statement whether 2.0 series support jumbos or not in dom0. Does it? TIA, Teemu -- _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Xen Community: As many of you are aware, the Xen 4.0 hypervisor is due to ship tomorrow (shhhh, don''t tell anyone) and I wanted to get submissions underway for Xen 4.1 features. I have updated the Roadmap Wiki page (http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenRoadMap) with a new section for Xen 4.1 features to be added. Feel free to add your ideas or send me your features and I will update the

Xen Community: As many of you are aware, the Xen 4.0 hypervisor is due to ship tomorrow (shhhh, don''t tell anyone) and I wanted to get submissions underway for Xen 4.1 features. I have updated the Roadmap Wiki page (http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenRoadMap) with a new section for Xen 4.1 features to be added. Feel free to add your ideas or send me your features and I will update the

Heya all, I''m working on testing ZFS with NFS, and I could use some guidance - read speeds are a bit less than I expected. Over a gig-e line, we''re seeing ~30 MB/s reads on average - doesn''t seem to matter if we''re doing large numbers of small files or small numbers of large files, the speed seems to top out there. We''ve disabled pre-fetching, which

Hi List, is it possible to limit the (disc) io for a domU? Best regrads, Mike _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users