From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
To: KVM mailing list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: performance of virtual functions compared to virtio
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:57:04 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DAF8EF0.8010203@gmail.com> (raw)
In general should virtual functions outperform virtio+vhost for
networking performance - latency and throughput?
I have 2 VMs running on a host. Each VM has 2 nics -- one tied to a VF
and the other going through virtio and a tap device like so:
------ ----
| |----------------| VF |---
| | ---- |
| VM 1 | |
| | ----- |
| |---| tap |--- |
------ ----- | ---
--- | e |
| b | | t |
| r | | h |
--- | 2 |
------ ----- | ---
| |---| tap |--- |
| | ----- |
| VM 2 | |
| | ---- |
| |----------------| VF |---
------ ----
The network arguments to qemu-kvm are:
-netdev type=tap,vhost=on,ifname=tap2,id=netdev1
-device virtio-net-pci,mac=${mac},netdev=netdev1
where ${mac} is unique to each VM and for the VF:
-device pci-assign,host=${pciid}
netserver is running within the VMs, and the netperf commands I am
running are:
netperf -p 12346 -H <ip> -l 20 -jcC -fM -v 2 -t TCP_RR -- -r 1024
netperf -p 12346 -H <ip> -l 20 -jcC -fM -v 2 -t TCP_STREAM
where <ip> changes depending on which interface I want to send the
traffic through. To say the least results are a bit disappointing for
the VF:
latency throughput
(usec/Tran) (MB/sec)
Host-VM
over virtio 139.160 1199.40
over VF 488.124 209.22
VM-VM
over virtio 322.056 773.54
over VF 488.051 328.88
I am just getting started with VFs and could use some hints on how to
improve the performance.
Host:
Dell R410
2 quad core E5620@2.40 GHz processors
16 GB RAM
Intel 82576 NIC (Gigabit ET Quad Port)
Fedora 14
kernel: 2.6.35.12-88.fc14.x86_64
qemu-kvm-0.13.0-1.fc14.x86_64
VMs:
Fedora 14
kernel 2.6.35.11-83.fc14.x86_64
2 vcpus
1GB RAM
Thanks,
David
next reply other threads:[~2011-04-21 1:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-21 1:57 David Ahern [this message]
2011-04-21 2:35 ` performance of virtual functions compared to virtio Alex Williamson
2011-04-21 8:07 ` Avi Kivity
2011-04-21 12:31 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2011-04-21 13:09 ` Avi Kivity
2011-04-25 17:49 ` David Ahern
2011-04-26 8:19 ` Avi Kivity
2011-04-27 21:13 ` David Ahern
2011-04-28 8:07 ` Avi Kivity
2011-04-25 17:46 ` David Ahern
2011-04-26 8:20 ` Avi Kivity
2011-04-25 17:39 ` David Ahern
2011-04-25 18:13 ` Alex Williamson
2011-04-25 19:07 ` David Ahern
2011-04-25 19:29 ` Alex Williamson
2011-04-25 19:49 ` David Ahern
2011-04-25 20:27 ` Alex Williamson
2011-04-25 20:40 ` David Ahern
2011-04-25 21:02 ` Alex Williamson
2011-04-25 21:14 ` David Ahern
2011-04-25 21:18 ` Alex Williamson
2011-04-25 20:49 ` Andrew Theurer
2011-05-02 18:58 ` David Ahern
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4DAF8EF0.8010203@gmail.com \
--to=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).