From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Mohr <damailings@mcbf.net>
Subject: Re: Networking latency - what to =?UTF-8?Q?expect=3F?=
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:50:41 -0700
Message-ID: <f9112ea5aed92fe8fb381122acfb880c@de.mcbf.net>
References: <65e3a10030795eacd577b0fac1a10bb1@de.mcbf.net>
 <87lidkjwho.fsf@os.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from seeker.mcbf.net ([109.239.49.157]:57162 "EHLO seeker.mcbf.net"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751165Ab2K2Puo (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:50:44 -0500
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=de.mcbf.net)
	by seeker.mcbf.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <damailings@mcbf.net>)
	id 1Te6Nu-000576-15
	for kvm@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:50:42 +0100
In-Reply-To: <87lidkjwho.fsf@os.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 2012-11-29 07:48, Julian Stecklina wrote:
> Thus spake David Mohr <damailings@mcbf.net>:
>
>> * vm->vm (same host)    22k
>
> This number is in the same ballpark as what I am seeing on pretty 
> much
> the same hardware.
>
> AFAICS, there is little you can do to the current virtio->virtio code
> path that would make this substantially faster.

Thanks for the feedback. Considering that it's better than the hardware 
network performance my main issue is actually the latency of 
communication between VMs on different hosts:
* vm->vm (diff. hosts)   7k

It is obvious that there is a lot more going on compared to same host 
communication, but only ~30% of the performance when the network 
hardware should not be slowing it down (too) much?

Thanks,
~David