* Network performance - sending from VM to VM using TCP @ 2005-05-25 22:24 Cherie Cheung 2005-05-25 23:04 ` Kip Macy 2005-05-25 23:24 ` [Xen-devel] " Nivedita Singhvi 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Cherie Cheung @ 2005-05-25 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xen-devel, xen-users Hi, I have been simulating a network using dummynet and evaluating it using netperf. Xen3.0-unstable is used and the VMs are vmlinuz-2.6.11-xenU. The simulated link is 300Mbps with 80ms RTT. Using netperf, I sent data using TCP from domain-0 of machine 1 to domain-0 of machine 2. Then I repeat the experiment, but this time from VM-1 of machine 1 to VM-1 of machine 2. However, the performance across the two VMs is substantially worse than that across domain-0. Here's the result: FROM VM to VM: TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to dw10.ucsd.edu (172.19.222.210) port 0 AF_INET Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 87380 65536 65536 80.28 24.83 FROM domain-0 to domain-0: TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to damp.ucsd.edu (137.110.222.236) port 0 AF_INET Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 87380 65536 65536 80.11 280.62 Here's the setting of the network buffer: net.core.wmem_max = 8388608 net.core.rmem_max = 8388608 net.ipv4.tcp_bic = 1 net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 87380 8388608 net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 65536 8388608 Does anyone know why the performance across two VMs is so bad? Any fix to it? Thank you. Cherie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Network performance - sending from VM to VM using TCP 2005-05-25 22:24 Network performance - sending from VM to VM using TCP Cherie Cheung @ 2005-05-25 23:04 ` Kip Macy 2005-05-25 23:24 ` [Xen-devel] " Nivedita Singhvi 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Kip Macy @ 2005-05-25 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Cherie Cheung; +Cc: xen-devel, xen-users Are you using FreeBSD or Linux? On Thu, 26 May 2005, Cherie Cheung wrote: > Hi, > > I have been simulating a network using dummynet and evaluating it > using netperf. Xen3.0-unstable is used and the VMs are > vmlinuz-2.6.11-xenU. The simulated link is 300Mbps with 80ms RTT. > Using netperf, I sent data using TCP from domain-0 of machine 1 to > domain-0 of machine 2. Then I repeat the experiment, but this time > from VM-1 of machine 1 to VM-1 of machine 2. > > However, the performance across the two VMs is substantially worse > than that across domain-0. Here's the result: > > FROM VM to VM: > TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to dw10.ucsd.edu > (172.19.222.210) port 0 AF_INET > Recv Send Send > Socket Socket Message Elapsed > Size Size Size Time Throughput > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec > > 87380 65536 65536 80.28 24.83 > > > FROM domain-0 to domain-0: > TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to damp.ucsd.edu > (137.110.222.236) port 0 AF_INET > Recv Send Send > Socket Socket Message Elapsed > Size Size Size Time Throughput > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec > > 87380 65536 65536 80.11 280.62 > > Here's the setting of the network buffer: > > net.core.wmem_max = 8388608 > net.core.rmem_max = 8388608 > net.ipv4.tcp_bic = 1 > net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 87380 8388608 > net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 65536 8388608 > > Does anyone know why the performance across two VMs is so bad? Any fix > to it? Thank you. > > Cherie > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > -- "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] Network performance - sending from VM to VM using TCP 2005-05-25 22:24 Network performance - sending from VM to VM using TCP Cherie Cheung 2005-05-25 23:04 ` Kip Macy @ 2005-05-25 23:24 ` Nivedita Singhvi 2005-05-26 5:28 ` Cherie Cheung 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Nivedita Singhvi @ 2005-05-25 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Cherie Cheung; +Cc: xen-devel, xen-users Cherie Cheung wrote: > Hi, > > I have been simulating a network using dummynet and evaluating it I haven't played with dummynet and don't know if there are additional issues inherent in using dummynet itself... > using netperf. Xen3.0-unstable is used and the VMs are > vmlinuz-2.6.11-xenU. The simulated link is 300Mbps with 80ms RTT. > Using netperf, I sent data using TCP from domain-0 of machine 1 to > domain-0 of machine 2. Then I repeat the experiment, but this time > from VM-1 of machine 1 to VM-1 of machine 2. > > However, the performance across the two VMs is substantially worse > than that across domain-0. Here's the result: > > FROM VM to VM: > TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to dw10.ucsd.edu > (172.19.222.210) port 0 AF_INET > Recv Send Send > Socket Socket Message Elapsed > Size Size Size Time Throughput > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec > > 87380 65536 65536 80.28 24.83 Your send message size is exactly your socket size. It is also the size of the default write buffer. The kernel uses half the buffer (very roughly) for data Were you testing with 65536 bytes exactly for some reason? This is stop and go traffic and normally the kernel doesn't use the entire buffer to store data - it's roughly half... Could you test with different send sizes? > FROM domain-0 to domain-0: > TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to damp.ucsd.edu > (137.110.222.236) port 0 AF_INET > Recv Send Send > Socket Socket Message Elapsed > Size Size Size Time Throughput > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec > > 87380 65536 65536 80.11 280.62 > > Here's the setting of the network buffer: > > net.core.wmem_max = 8388608 > net.core.rmem_max = 8388608 > net.ipv4.tcp_bic = 1 > net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 87380 8388608 > net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 65536 8388608 > > Does anyone know why the performance across two VMs is so bad? Any fix > to it? Thank you. If you just want to improve your peformance, increase your buffer sizes! For example: tcp_rmem = 4096 1398080 8388608 tcp_wmem = 4096 1398080 8388608 Were you seeing losses, queue overflows? More importantly, how much memory do you have in the system and how were you allocating it? thanks, Nivedita ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] Network performance - sending from VM to VM using TCP 2005-05-25 23:24 ` [Xen-devel] " Nivedita Singhvi @ 2005-05-26 5:28 ` Cherie Cheung 2005-05-27 0:05 ` Nivedita Singhvi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Cherie Cheung @ 2005-05-26 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nivedita Singhvi; +Cc: xen-devel, xen-users Hi, Thanks for answering me. Here's what I have: > Were you testing with 65536 bytes exactly for some reason? > This is stop and go traffic and normally the kernel doesn't > use the entire buffer to store data - it's roughly half... > > Could you test with different send sizes? No special reason for that. What do you mean by kernel doesn't use the entire buffer to store the data? I have tried different send size. It doesn't make any noticable difference. > If you just want to improve your peformance, increase your > buffer sizes! > > For example: > tcp_rmem = 4096 1398080 8388608 > tcp_wmem = 4096 1398080 8388608 The performance only improved a little. TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to dw15.ucsd.edu (172.19.222.215) port 0 AF_INET Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 1398080 1398080 1398080 80.39 26.55 can't compare with that of domain0 to domain0. > Were you seeing losses, queue overflows? how to check that? > More importantly, how much memory do you have in the system and > how were you allocating it? it said 127MB in sudo xm list is it really the problem with the buffer size and send size? domain0 can achieve such good performance under the same settings. Is the bottleneck related to the overhead in the VM that causes the problem? also, I had performed some more tests: with bandwidth 150Mbit/s and RTT 40ms domain0 to domain0 Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 87380 65536 65536 80.17 135.01 vm to vm Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 87380 65536 65536 80.55 134.80 under these setting, VM to VM performed as good as domain0 to domain0. if I increased or decreased the BDP, the performance dropped again. Any idea what is causing the problem? Thanks. Cherie On 5/26/05, Nivedita Singhvi <niv@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Cherie Cheung wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have been simulating a network using dummynet and evaluating it > > I haven't played with dummynet and don't know if there are > additional issues inherent in using dummynet itself... > > > using netperf. Xen3.0-unstable is used and the VMs are > > vmlinuz-2.6.11-xenU. The simulated link is 300Mbps with 80ms RTT. > > Using netperf, I sent data using TCP from domain-0 of machine 1 to > > domain-0 of machine 2. Then I repeat the experiment, but this time > > from VM-1 of machine 1 to VM-1 of machine 2. > > > > However, the performance across the two VMs is substantially worse > > than that across domain-0. Here's the result: > > > > FROM VM to VM: > > TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to dw10.ucsd.edu > > (172.19.222.210) port 0 AF_INET > > Recv Send Send > > Socket Socket Message Elapsed > > Size Size Size Time Throughput > > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec > > > > 87380 65536 65536 80.28 24.83 > > Your send message size is exactly your socket size. It is also > the size of the default write buffer. The kernel uses half the > buffer (very roughly) for data > > Were you testing with 65536 bytes exactly for some reason? > This is stop and go traffic and normally the kernel doesn't > use the entire buffer to store data - it's roughly half... > > Could you test with different send sizes? > > > FROM domain-0 to domain-0: > > TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to damp.ucsd.edu > > (137.110.222.236) port 0 AF_INET > > Recv Send Send > > Socket Socket Message Elapsed > > Size Size Size Time Throughput > > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec > > > > 87380 65536 65536 80.11 280.62 > > > > Here's the setting of the network buffer: > > > > net.core.wmem_max = 8388608 > > net.core.rmem_max = 8388608 > > net.ipv4.tcp_bic = 1 > > net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 87380 8388608 > > net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 65536 8388608 > > > > Does anyone know why the performance across two VMs is so bad? Any fix > > to it? Thank you. > > If you just want to improve your peformance, increase your > buffer sizes! > > For example: > tcp_rmem = 4096 1398080 8388608 > tcp_wmem = 4096 1398080 8388608 > > Were you seeing losses, queue overflows? > > More importantly, how much memory do you have in the system and > how were you allocating it? > > > thanks, > Nivedita > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Network performance - sending from VM to VM using TCP 2005-05-26 5:28 ` Cherie Cheung @ 2005-05-27 0:05 ` Nivedita Singhvi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Nivedita Singhvi @ 2005-05-27 0:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Cherie Cheung; +Cc: xen-devel, xen-users Cherie Cheung wrote: > >>Could you test with different send sizes? > > > No special reason for that. What do you mean by kernel doesn't use the > entire buffer to store the data? I have tried different send size. It > doesn't make any noticable difference. Normally, if you do a write that fits in the send buffer, the write will return immediately. If you don't have enough room, it will block until the buffer drains and there is enough room. Normally, the kernel reserves a fraction of the socket buffer space for internal kernel data management. If you do a setsockopt of 128K bytes, for instance, and then do a getsockopt(), you will notice that the kernel will report twice what you asked for. > The performance only improved a little. > > TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to dw15.ucsd.edu > (172.19.222.215) port 0 AF_INET > Recv Send Send > Socket Socket Message Elapsed > Size Size Size Time Throughput > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec > > 1398080 1398080 1398080 80.39 26.55 Ah, the idea is not to use such a large send message size! Increase your buffer sizes - but not your send message size..Not sure if netperf handles that well - this is a memory allocation issue. netperf is an intensive application in TCP streams - the application does no disk activity - it's generating data on the fly, and doing repeated writes of that amount. You might just be blocking on memory. I'd be very interested in what you get with those buffer sizes and 1K, 4K, 16K message sizes.. > can't compare with that of domain0 to domain0. So both domains have 128MB? Can you bump that up to, say, 512MB? >>Were you seeing losses, queue overflows? > > how to check that? you can do a netstat -s, ifconfig, for instance. > is it really the problem with the buffer size and send size? domain0 > can achieve such good performance under the same settings. Is the > bottleneck related to the overhead in the VM that causes the problem? > > also, I had performed some more tests: > with bandwidth 150Mbit/s and RTT 40ms > > domain0 to domain0 > Recv Send Send > Socket Socket Message Elapsed > Size Size Size Time Throughput > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec > > 87380 65536 65536 80.17 135.01 > > vm to vm > Recv Send Send > Socket Socket Message Elapsed > Size Size Size Time Throughput > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec > > 87380 65536 65536 80.55 134.80 > > under these setting, VM to VM performed as good as domain0 to domain0. > if I increased or decreased the BDP, the performance dropped again. Very interesting - possibly you're managing to send closer to your real bandwidth-delay-product? Would be interesting to get the numbers across a range of RTTs. thanks, Nivedita ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-05-27 0:05 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-05-25 22:24 Network performance - sending from VM to VM using TCP Cherie Cheung 2005-05-25 23:04 ` Kip Macy 2005-05-25 23:24 ` [Xen-devel] " Nivedita Singhvi 2005-05-26 5:28 ` Cherie Cheung 2005-05-27 0:05 ` Nivedita Singhvi
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.