On 06/08/2011 11:25 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > On 06/08/2011 11:11 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote: >> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:58:06 +0800 >> Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> The performance test result: >>> >>> Netperf (TCP_RR): >>> =========================== >>> ept is enabled: >>> >>> Before After >>> 1st 709.58 734.60 >>> 2nd 715.40 723.75 >>> 3rd 713.45 724.22 >>> >>> ept=0 bypass_guest_pf=0: >>> >>> Before After >>> 1st 706.10 709.63 >>> 2nd 709.38 715.80 >>> 3rd 695.90 710.70 >>> >> >> In what condition, does TCP_RR perform so bad? >> >> On 1Gbps network, directly connecting two Intel servers, >> I got 20 times better result before. >> >> Even when I used a KVM guest as the netperf client, >> I got more than 10 times better result. >> > > Um, which case did you test? ept = 1 or ept=0 bypass_guest_pf=0 or both? > >> Could you tell me a bit more details of your test? >> > > Sure, KVM guest is the client, and it uses e1000 NIC, and uses NAT > network connect to the netperf server, the bandwidth of our network > is 100M. > And this is my test script: #!/bin/sh echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ./netperf -H $HOST_NAME -p $PORT -t TCP_RR -l 60 -- 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
