From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Chmielewski Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] kvm-guest-drivers-windows-2 Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 10:02:23 +0200 Message-ID: <482BEE0F.2090607@wpkg.org> 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> <1210834649.24261.860.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: dor.laor@qumranet.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1210834649.24261.860.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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 Dor Laor schrieb: (...) >>> 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. How well, when compared to "bare metal"? Or when compared to a Linux guest with a pv block driver? Do you have any numbers? -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/