From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Virtio network performance poorer than emulated e1000
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:11:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4C49409B.5000505@redhat.com>
References: <AANLkTil68HYQovhJ8mwFITxOv78nsXwLa_AWJBkhlwWc@mail.gmail.com>	<1279844304.3274.43.camel@w-sridhar.beaverton.ibm.com> <AANLkTimS6XVWgxJS0YIJfnQOy_f0-WRExbdkkyMyGMJ1@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Sridhar Samudrala <samudrala.sridhar@gmail.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Balachandar <bala1486@gmail.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47170 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752062Ab0GWHL1 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:11:27 -0400
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimS6XVWgxJS0YIJfnQOy_f0-WRExbdkkyMyGMJ1@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 07/23/10 03:31, Balachandar wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Sridhar Samudrala
> I tried this one also but not much improvement. Actually i get a some
> improvement if i disabled the tx timeout timer in the virtio_net.h in
> qemu-kvm. I read that with vhost the data flow path differs from
> normal operation. So is the timeout applicable when we  use vhost
> also? Actually i dont see any improvement with vhost. I am just
> wondering what am i missing? The thing that worries me is that
> emulated nic offers much greater performance than virtio with vhost.
> So i feel i am doing something wrong but unable to find it.

Could you try measuring something meaningful instead of ping please?
netperf or some other benchmark?

Jes