From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FTUoP-0007A0-JI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:10:29 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FTUoN-00079B-KL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:10:28 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FTUoN-000797-Hw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:10:27 -0400
Received: from [211.5.2.75] (helo=nm01omta01f.dion.ne.jp)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FTUtM-0000IT-R2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:15:37 -0400
Message-ID: <001201c65dd6$42421790$0464a8c0@athlon>
From: "Kazu" <kazoo@r3.dion.ne.jp>
References: <6fe044190604111020h47108190x23983325567fb51c@mail.gmail.com>	<200604111828.29361.paul@codesourcery.com><6fe044190604111049j186d7c44oea9568ce1a8b54f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<443BF331.4080400@helmutauer.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Network Performance between Win Host and Linux
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:10:23 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org


Hi,

I have already made a patch. Try this.

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2006-03/msg00041.html

Regards,
Kazu

Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:19 AM Helmut Auer wrote:

> Hello
>> In my case, the guest CPU is idle.  The host CPU utilization is only 5
>> or 10 percent when running "find / -print > /dev/null" on the guest. 
>> So I don't think guest interrupt latency is the issue for me in this
>> case.
>>   
> In my environment the performance of about 300 KB is the good case, that 
> means the cpu is idle. When the cpu is busy it degrades to20 KB in the 
> worst case.
> As I said before, with the tap-patched qemu 0.7.2 it is about 10 times 
> faster.
> 
> -- 
> Helmut Auer, helmut@helmutauer.de 
>