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


[Xen-devel] Re: Network buffering of remus

To: Brendan Cully <brendan@xxxxxxxxx>, geoffrey@xxxxxxxxx, dmeyer@xxxxxxxxx, feeley@xxxxxxxxx, norm@xxxxxxxxx, andy@xxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: Network buffering of remus
From: Frank Pan <frankpzh@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:35:51 +0800
Delivery-date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:37:04 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=AF3NufxbKs15E8Qy/eGZJd/+soIIU3FoFBmhSTV2lZk=; b=nlBt9D0wWaXaQEtgKjjo4YygxnsrMlhvYzmccFdOn2lh7+Y/FJZZ5A3CXCnT5RR+zZ dC1osjirvmAO34Rde0/4KrksxYPkwvIggw13JUWq1VK4Wu04p4MGUpLWdGpuEPzfV7d8 sgfWvtkfRNiAYJ/C1o8ecXViNjWwvMl0JUHaA=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=T4rq3g0jS3LAdTUPwxSj9OM8R8JHHaFMehkAGnaag3e78IVTlcvN9jggZ4MyxaMTSX 20R5NXpMCcPHc18kVMcxJjNenbhs0bKIHsPzl2/WRtxmgs5+2ltKNTWceuge279g3GHB J1jbEQf+Ba2yLZf/s7ZkxwBQ/4slRAPR/NEUU=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100823163928.GC4470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
References: <AANLkTik49ncUKa9W0nRLN_qNFhmbgPXhNuNYQJbjeUpU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100823163928.GC4470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Brendan Cully <brendan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> You'll probably want to test with something a bit more systematic than
> ping. If ping sends a packet to the protected machine just before the
> end of an epoch, the response won't be buffered very long at all. On
> the other hand, if ping sends its packet at the start of an epoch, the
> response will be delayed for the entire epoch length. By default, ping
> sends packets infrequently, and the delay between pings isn't
> particularly rigid, so you'll get jumpy results with it.

Thanks for reply.

After some debugging I found the buffering is not working. I use an
hvm guest with qemu-simulated NIC, the active interface is tapX.0, not
I've modified remus code, replace "vif%d.0" with "tap%d.0", but it
does not work. Do you know how to make it working?

I also tried pv NIC on hvm, but it seems remus does not support
"PV-on-HVM" guest. Is it hard to do, if I want to add this feature?
Can you give me some advices?


Frank Pan

Computer Science and Technology
Tsinghua University

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>