From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Reese Faucette" Subject: Re: vif interface dropping 80% packets Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:35:30 -0800 Message-ID: <00cd01c74a47$7d915b40$58c31fac@bart> References: <086c01c74986$0e8fd120$58c31fac@bart><08CA2245AFCF444DB3AC415E47CC40AF71781F@G3W0072.americas.hpqcorp.net><007101c74a20$cf49d600$58c31fac@bart><08CA2245AFCF444DB3AC415E47CC40AF71789E@G3W0072.americas.hpqcorp.net><00b901c74a41$86ba3b70$58c31fac@bart> <8A87A9A84C201449A0C56B728ACF491E04F46E@liverpoolst.ad.cl.cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >> update: >> The performance is better with 9k MTU, as expected: >> TCP_STREAM and TCP_SENDFILE both get ~1.8Gb/s, xentop reports 87% >> utilization for dom0, so I guess that's about all I can expect without >> code changes. > > I've seen rather better figures than this with another 10G card. > Does your NIC/driver support TSO and LRO? yes to both, and have tried with LRO both enabled and disabled. again, the dom0 performance is fine, it's just to domU that is slower. I have network bridging set up on this interface, i.e. peth2, eth2, xenbr2, etc. - is that not the way I should be doing it? >> 2) if yes, Will the patch "fedora-36252.patch" work on the 2.6.16 >> kernel included with 3.0.4, or have conflicts crept in? > > No idea. What does the patch do? This was the mythical patch to make 2.6.18 into a Xen-aware kernel. Took me forever to track it down - is there a more obvious place to look? Sorry to just refer to the file by name, after googling forever i decided i was the only person in the Xen world not intimately familiar with this patch. -reese