From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Kinzler Subject: Re: RE: Stability report GPLPV 0.11.0.308 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:07:25 +0200 Message-ID: <4E93183D.80600@hfp.de> References: <4E64A0DF.2070007@hfp.de> <4E64D569.5030607@hfp.de> <4E7728F9.9020208@hfp.de> <4E7B04A4.9070601@hfp.de> <4E7CF2A8.5040405@hfp.de> <4E808FE9.5050008@hfp.de> <4E858925.6090903@hfp.de> <4E86F53B.4050100@hfp.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4E86F53B.4050100@hfp.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: James Harper Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hello James, >> Actually one other thing you could try is simply using the Windows >> 2003 version of the drivers. That uses ndis5 and scsiport instead >> of ndis6 and storport. If that worked we could try running with >> ndis5 + storport and see if that works okay. As long as they are >> from the same patchlevel it shouldn't matter if you use one >> compiled for windows 2008 and one for windows 2003 (it's possible >> that it might matter but I can't think of anything). > I now compiled 0.11.0.312 with scsiport and ndis5 (and patched the > .inf file, deleted the [XenGplPv.NT$ARCH$.6.0] section). Test is now > running. Crashed after 1-2 days, but actually I found that ndis5 of 0.11.0.213 has major differences from ndis5 of 0.11.0.312 so I am not sure what that means? The whole reason I am doing all the testing is because the net performance of 0.11.0.213 is not good enough and 0.11.0.312 has near native performance on gigabit links - but even the ndis5 driver of 0.11.0.312 has very good performance so it does not seem to be an NDIS 6 improvement. Any news on your side? Regards Andreas