"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 09/08/2010 01:40:11 PM: > _______________________________________________________________________________ > > UDP (#numtxqs=8) > > N# BW1 BW2 (%) SD1 SD2 (%) > > __________________________________________________________ > > 4 29836 56761 (90.24) 67 63 (-5.97) > > 8 27666 63767 (130.48) 326 265 (-18.71) > > 16 25452 60665 (138.35) 1396 1269 (-9.09) > > 32 26172 63491 (142.59) 5617 4202 (-25.19) > > 48 26146 64629 (147.18) 12813 9316 (-27.29) > > 64 25575 65448 (155.90) 23063 16346 (-29.12) > > 128 26454 63772 (141.06) 91054 85051 (-6.59) > > __________________________________________________________ > > N#: Number of netperf sessions, 90 sec runs > > BW1,SD1,RSD1: Bandwidth (sum across 2 runs in mbps), SD and Remote > > SD for original code > > BW2,SD2,RSD2: Bandwidth (sum across 2 runs in mbps), SD and Remote > > SD for new code. e.g. BW2=40716 means average BW2 was > > 20358 mbps. > > > > What happens with a single netperf? > host -> guest performance with TCP and small packet speed > are also worth measuring. Guest -> Host (single netperf): I am getting a drop of almost 20%. I am trying to figure out why. Host -> guest (single netperf): I am getting an improvement of almost 15%. Again - unexpected. Guest -> Host TCP_RR: I get an average 7.4% increase in #packets for runs upto 128 sessions. With fewer netperf (under 8), there was a drop of 3-7% in #packets, but beyond that, the #packets improved significantly to give an average improvement of 7.4%. So it seems that fewer sessions is having negative effect for some reason on the tx side. The code path in virtio-net has not changed much, so the drop in some cases is quite unexpected. Thanks, - KK -- 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
