On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:32:12 +0800 Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > > ept = 1 only. > >> 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. > > I see the reason, thank you! I used virtio-net and you used e1000. You are using e1000 to see the MMIO performance change, right? Takuya > > 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
