From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [BUNDLE] Testing a simpler inter-domain transport Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:56:09 -0600 Message-ID: <43E62E29.4090209@us.ibm.com> References: <1139110732.25090.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1139110732.25090.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Rusty Russell Cc: xen-devel , Tony Breeds List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Rusty Russell wrote: >It's unoptimized, but shows some promise. Here are the benchmarks for >tcpblast and tbench, on a uniproc 3GHz Pentium 4. I'd appreciate SMP >numbers if someone has hardware on hand: > > UDP blast: tcpblast -u -s50000 dom0 9999 > Current Xen = 254961 KB/s > Simple share = 233952 KB/s > TCP blast: tcpblast -t -s50000 dom0 9999 > Current Xen = 86566.4 KB/s > Simple share = 135415 KB/s > Bidir tcp load: tbench 10 > Current Xen = 31.9551 MB/sec > Simple share = 64.2113 MB/sec > > I imagine the numbers for the Simple share should be pretty similiar for domU to domU right? I also imagine that domU to domU under Current xen should be considerably worse right? Any idea why there's UDP degradation? This stuff looks awesome :-) Regards, Anthony Liguori >It's not plumbed into xenbus, so creating LANs is a manual process, >using the dmesg output from the initial creation: > > dom0# modprobe ohlan create > ohlan: created lan eth1 at address 0x1b6000 > domU# modprobe ohlan address=0x1b6000 > >Feedback welcome! >Rusty. > >