On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Michael Tokarev <mjt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 26.07.2010 11:26, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> >> On 07/24/10 17:04, Balachandar wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Jes Sorensen<Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>> 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? >> >> Ok thats good to hear. Sounds like the Debian package might be dodgy, or >> they just happened to snapshot at a bad time. > > I wonder which version it is - the "debian package". Are we talking > about kvm-72 from debian lenny perhaps? > > Current version is 0.12.4-1, which is upstream 0.12.4-1 with a few > bugfixes (such as >1Tb block device corruption). I'm not sure how > that one might be "dogdy" or snapshotted at a bad time. > > Thanks! > > /mjt > I am sorry. I made a mistake while testing it. There is no problem with the Debian package. I get better latency results when i disable the TX timeout in the virtio-net.c in qemu-kvm. But there is no improvement over this result when i 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
