From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dor Laor Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] kvm-guest-drivers-windows-2 Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 09:57:29 +0300 Message-ID: <1210834649.24261.860.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <482AEE8D.7000608@wpkg.org> <1210777782.24261.829.camel@localhost.localdomain> <482B09EE.20903@wpkg.org> <1210781968.24261.841.camel@localhost.localdomain> <482B2649.2090006@codemonkey.ws> <482B551C.2010808@wpkg.org> Reply-To: dor.laor@qumranet.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: Tomasz Chmielewski Return-path: In-Reply-To: <482B551C.2010808@wpkg.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 23:09 +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: > Anthony Liguori schrieb: > > (...) > > >>> So, a PV network driver can do about 700Mb/s, and an emulated NIC can > >>> do about 600 Mb/s, Windows guest to host? > >>> > >>> That would be about 20% improvement? > >>> > > > > FWIW, virtio-net is much better with my patches applied. The difference > > between the e1000 and virtio-net is that e1000 consumes almost twice as > > much CPU as virtio-net so in my testing, the performance improvement > > with virtio-net is about 2x. We were loosing about 20-30% throughput > > because of the delays in handling incoming packets. > > Do you by chance have any recent numbers on disk performance (i.e., Windows > guest vs Linux host)? > > At the moment there is no pv block driver for Windows guests. (there is for linux) You can use scsi for windows, it should perform well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/