|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-users
RE: [Xen-users] Bad TCP accept performance
> How well 127.0.0.1 performs however is kind of a moot point however as no real
> application would make use of this. The real test is how many you can spin up
> from a physical host outside of the virtualization platform. There's also
> value in knowing how many you can make from VM to VM.
It does reduce the scope of the test to the TCP/IP stack though. If 127.0.0.1
performs well then the test doesn't tell you much, but if 127.0.0.1 performs
badly then it definitely tells you where you should be looking for the problem,
or at least it tells you that you shouldn't be looking for problems in the
DomX<->DomX layer.
James
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [Xen-users] Bad TCP accept performance, (continued)
- RE: [Xen-users] Bad TCP accept performance, Russ Purinton
- Re: [Xen-users] Bad TCP accept performance, Pasi Kärkkäinen
- Re: [Xen-users] Bad TCP accept performance, Carl Byström
- RE: [Xen-users] Bad TCP accept performance, Russ Purinton
- Re: [Xen-users] Bad TCP accept performance, Pasi Kärkkäinen
- RE: [Xen-users] Bad TCP accept performance, Tian, Kevin
- RE: [Xen-users] Bad TCP accept performance, Russ Purinton
- RE: [Xen-users] Bad TCP accept performance,
James Harper <=
RE: [Xen-users] Bad TCP accept performance, Russ Purinton
Re: [Xen-users] Bad TCP accept performance, Iain Kay
|
|
|
|
|