On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/23/10 03:31, Balachandar wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Sridhar Samudrala >> I tried this one also but not much improvement. Actually i get a some >> improvement if i disabled the tx timeout timer in the virtio_net.h in >> qemu-kvm. I read that with vhost the data flow path differs from >> normal operation. So is the timeout applicable when we use vhost >> also? Actually i dont see any improvement with vhost. I am just >> wondering what am i missing? The thing that worries me is that >> emulated nic offers much greater performance than virtio with vhost. >> So i feel i am doing something wrong but unable to find it. > > Could you try measuring something meaningful instead of ping please? > netperf or some other benchmark? > > Jes > Actually i got better results when i downloaded qemu-kvm 0.12.4 from sourceforge and ran it. Now virtio performs better than emaulated e1000 with our own simple ping-pong latency tests. Previously i used Debian squeeze kvm package and i got poor results for virtio. I used vhost-net as described by the kvm website.http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/VhostNet. This also seem to have the same problems i faced with Debian kvm package. How are you guyz using vhost? Is there any other way to use vhost? Thanks, Bala -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
