From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FTNSj-0004Mn-QL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:19:37 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FTNSj-0004MT-06
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:19:37 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FTNSi-0004MQ-Sp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:19:36 -0400
Received: from [81.209.188.70] (helo=dd3532.kasserver.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FTNXd-0005Jg-Ls
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:24:41 -0400
Received: from [192.168.178.120] (p5081397D.dip0.t-ipconnect.de
	[80.129.57.125])
	by dd3532.kasserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036CFCC382
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:19:34 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <443BF331.4080400@helmutauer.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:19:29 +0200
From: Helmut Auer <vdr@helmutauer.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Network Performance between Win Host and Linux
References: <6fe044190604111020h47108190x23983325567fb51c@mail.gmail.com>	<200604111828.29361.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<6fe044190604111049j186d7c44oea9568ce1a8b54f3@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6fe044190604111049j186d7c44oea9568ce1a8b54f3@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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

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