WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

RE: [Xen-users] Release 0.9.10 of GPL PV Drivers for Windows

To: "jim burns" <jim_burn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-users] Release 0.9.10 of GPL PV Drivers for Windows
From: "James Harper" <james.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:51:05 +1000
Delivery-date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:51:41 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200806182223.56645.jim_burn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <AEC6C66638C05B468B556EA548C1A77D0148FA4F@trantor>(sfid-20080617_064444_672389_FF9C28C9) <200806182223.56645.jim_burn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcjRs77377wG85z4TziQE079gzYZvwAExijQ
Thread-topic: [Xen-users] Release 0.9.10 of GPL PV Drivers for Windows
> for 0.9.10:
> For a tcp test, 'iperf-1.7.0 -c dom0-name -t 60 -r':
> 
> domu->dom0: 37.5 Mb/s (better)
> dom0->domu: 101 Mb/s (wow!)
> 
> While I would love it if the two directions were more equal, it's
> definitely
> better for the download speeds to be better than the upload if I can
only
> pick one ;-)
> 
> (Playing with all combinations of csum and lso off and on resulted in
> minor differences.)

Off the top of my head, here are a list of reasons why performance might
not be all that it could be:

1. Linux supports Large Send and Large Receive (for when a Large Send
packet doesn't get routed out of physical hardware). Windows can do
Large Send but cannot handle Large Receive, so I have to fake it by
splitting up the large packet into smaller ones and re-calculating
checksums.

2. Windows seems to only ever give me one packet in its 'SendPackets'
routine, which will obviously result in higher per-packet overheads than
if it could batch them (eg we potentially have to 'notify' dom0 of a new
packet each time instead of having to batch them). Large Send may lessen
that problem a bit though.

3. We don't try and do any interrupt moderation or anything.

4. We try and be a bit conservative with resources (eg packet buffers
etc).

So there is a chance of getting a bit more performance out of it yet...

James



_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users