GigE is slower. Here is ping from same boxes but using the 1GigE cards: [root at node0.cloud ~]# ping -c 10 10.100.0.11 PING 10.100.0.11 (10.100.0.11) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 10.100.0.11: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.628 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.0.11: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.283 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.0.11: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.307 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.0.11: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.275 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.0.11: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.313 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.0.11: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.278 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.0.11: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.309 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.0.11: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.197 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.0.11: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.267 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.0.11: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.187 ms --- 10.100.0.11 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9000ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.187/0.304/0.628/0.116 ms Note: The Infiniband interfaces have a constant load of traffic from glusterfs. The Nic cards comparatively have very little traffic. On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw at ithnet.com> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:13:53 -0700 > Bryan Whitehead <driver at megahappy.net> wrote: > >> I'm using 40G Infiniband with IPoIB for gluster. Here are some ping >> times (from host 172.16.1.10): >> >> [root at node0.cloud ~]# ping -c 10 172.16.1.11 >> PING 172.16.1.11 (172.16.1.11) 56(84) bytes of data. >> 64 bytes from 172.16.1.11: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.093 ms >> 64 bytes from 172.16.1.11: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.113 ms >> 64 bytes from 172.16.1.11: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.163 ms >> 64 bytes from 172.16.1.11: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.125 ms >> 64 bytes from 172.16.1.11: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.125 ms >> 64 bytes from 172.16.1.11: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.125 ms >> 64 bytes from 172.16.1.11: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.198 ms >> 64 bytes from 172.16.1.11: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.171 ms >> 64 bytes from 172.16.1.11: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.194 ms >> 64 bytes from 172.16.1.11: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.115 ms >> >> --- 172.16.1.11 ping statistics --- >> 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 8999ms >> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.093/0.142/0.198/0.035 ms > > What you like to say is that there is no significant difference compared to > GigE, right? > Anyone got a ping between two kvm-qemu virtio-net cards at hand? > > -- > Regards, > Stephan >
