This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: Re: [Xen-users] pfSense HVM

To: "Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Re: [Xen-users] pfSense HVM
From: Matej Zary <zary@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:03:07 +0200
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Delivery-date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 04:05:32 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4C0AEBD0.90000@xxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4BFE986C.5000704@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4C001295.4040909@xxxxxxxxxx> <4C0055BC.1050202@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4C006BF0.4040208@xxxxxxxxxx> <4C0A8F51.90503@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4C0AABA5.1080208@xxxxxxxxxx> ,<4C0AD13F.101@xxxxxxxxxxx> <5DB0519124BB3D4DBEEB14426D4AC7EA17E925E926@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C0AEBD0.90000@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcsFZ9fvJhwkj8yCSHK4LUnBnd/amg==
Thread-topic: Re: [Xen-users] pfSense HVM
On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 01:29 +0100, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
> On 06/06/10 01:23, Matej Zary wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > looks like you have much better HW than I used - when I benched Linux HVM 
> > guest on Athlon X2 1,9 GHz I got scary results (in a bad way of course) :D. 
> > 90 mbit/s is not bad at all for emulated hvm guest - the questions is, how 
> > much CPU power it consumes in the dom0 (qemu-dm process) and how many 
> > availabe cores do you have. PV driver should solve this issue (or pci 
> > passthru for the WAN NIC and PV driver for the LAN NIC). I got better 
> > results is some cases with the default emulated NIC (realtek?),  but in 
> > majority, the emulated e1000 was better.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > Matej
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jonathan Tripathy 
> > [jonnyt@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 06 June 2010 00:35
> > To: Nicolas Vilz; Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-users] pfSense HVM
> >
> >    
> Hi Matej,
> Well it's a quad core Xeon X3430 with 8GB of RAM. I'm using 
> PCI-Passthrough for the WAN NIC, and e1000 for the LAN NIC. Since it's 
> pfsense, it isn't easy (if at all possible) to get this going with PV.
> So even though e1000 is a "gigabit" driver, 90Mb/s is ok for HVM you think?
> Thanks

You can try bench the throughput between wan and the pfsense (how fast
ist the pci-passthru) and the between the pfsense and another domu or
Dom0(how slow is the emulation). Iperf is neat CLI utility for this. :)

Also when benching the pfsense-domx, watch the CPU utilization in the
Dom0 (top, or better with dstat). The emulation tends to induce quite a
cpu load in the dom0 via the qemu-dm process (at least on my shoddy old
hw :) ). Emulation is really ineffective and I think that the various
emulation NIC models don't have that significant impact on the overall
speed - the "slowness" of this method lies in the nature of
emulation. :)

I attached one graph from my benchmarks - all results are in Mbit/s,
iperf TCP bench with 3 different overall frame lengths. PC was another
physical computer (same HW config) - so this is physical to virtual
bench. Just for illustration of the PV drivers impact. :)



<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

Xen-users mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>