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: [Xen-devel] xen.git branch reorg

To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] xen.git branch reorg
From: Boris Derzhavets <bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:50:52 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1240599025; bh=0ZzUA9+j47+TYNAY5uH8VAcSGNdVMMrpPhk9AKmH31U=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=xViGKZIfLmQ0uuTuP1MMEP53YxZrUM385YfojoTlfTUioBiM9UF/mrQMhjPOAh0fazOhEi1qbgLXbmpMxSrtEki7TGZiMfCVti1e+CJPsEx5eFUxKpD2G5XF/hHCLdiD1V3gaFYZ/v0CTZmg1R4Tyz29PrW3w7xPeiW3fPrDxkk=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JGV8jZs0bsfJcyRf37QUy6U5PMYIYEP8sv6D0D4va4+CxXJBb3d8E/6Bw7e1f+3i1ozeyuxAiTfs8xmIaNu/OA/dn8iJb+z2HHJGTCCUP2sPGT0H3HmMnFDAxD0xvyRdwCxdGOI6/2+004RWKOo9lw9RYBX96zcorhC/ttvBeh0=;
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <49F2024E.5000507@xxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply-to: bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 In meantime time i see,  that 2.6.30-rc3&rc2&rc1-tip are affected.
Solution is the same as on Solaris xVM Linux DomUs about one
year ago -  is  to disable checksum (nothing else) offloading at Linux DomUs ( CentOS 5.3, Ubuntu 9.04)

/usr/local/sbin/ethtool -K etho tx off

It immediately brings remote VNC connections to the nice shape.
Actually , speeds up network. 

I will run "tcpdump" through this weekend to find out what's going
wrong. To be honest,  i have experience with catching checksum offloading
failure via tcpdump's  capturing only on Solaris Nevada xVM ;)
But, i'll post the logs captured anyway.
Just a brief instruction where to run tcpdump ( and what command line keys are needed ) would help a lot.


--- On Fri, 4/24/09, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] xen.git branch reorg
To: bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Pasi Kärkkäinen" <pasik@xxxxxx>, "Xen-devel" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 2:17 PM

Boris Derzhavets wrote:
> Kernel been built based on xen-tip/next appears to have name
> and behaves under Xen 3.4-rc2-pre as usual. No problems were noticed with
PV DomUs
> for CentOS 5.3, F10, Ubuntu Server 9.04. However, remote VNC connection
to Ubuntu
> Server 9.04 PV DomU seems to be extrtemely slow. VNC connection to same
> from Dom0 runs fine. I'll try to test this issue for CentOS and F10
> I also have to notice that remote VNC connection to Ubuntu 9.04 DomU
running at the same Xen 3.4 version Dom0 with Suse's xen-ified
kernel behaves just fine.
> IP6v connection via vinagre (for Ubuntu Server 9.04 DomU) behaves exactly
same way as old fashioned. No problems when been established from Dom0 and
almost dead remotely.

Is it always consistent with the same kernel, or does it change from boot to

Could you try to work out what's actually failing with tcpdump/wireshark,
both from within the domU, and from dom0? Are packets getting lost on tx or rx,
or very delayed, or something else?


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