[Xen-devel] XenoDemoCD Status

["Woloszynski, Charles" <charles.woloszynski@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I was just going to download the Xen Demo CD for v1.2 (which the web site would be available the first week in February (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/downloads.html) and it was not there. 

Is this close to being released?  I would like to test-spin Xen and this sounded like a great way.  If it will be a long time, then perhaps I'll do it the full-installation approach.

Thanks for any info on the timeframe for v1.2 DemoCD.

Charlie

Charlie Woloszynski
Innovative Concepts Inc.
703-893-2007 x506
charles.woloszynski@xxxxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Pratt [mailto:Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:11 PM
To: Woloszynski, Charles
Cc: 'Ian Pratt'; 'xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Creating a local network within the GuestOS and r outing to an ext ernal network

> How bad is the inter-VM performance?  Are we talking about sub 10 Mbps
> or just not blazing given that it is really a memory-net?

Last time I measured I think we were only getting about 800Mb/s with 1500 byte packets (less than we get going over a LAN !).

We should be getting multiple Gb/s.

> Is there any reason you can think of that IPv6 won't work with the
> current Xen network support?  We are going to use IPv6 (at least for
> off-box communications).

The VFR in the mainline tree only supports IPv4. However, Mike Wray has developed a L2 network switch support for Xen, which will hopefully be checked in soon. One side effect of L2 Ethernet MAC switching support would be that I expect IPv6 will just work as Xen is no longer needing to look deeper than the Ethernet header. (Xen won't be able to enforce IP firewalling for you, but if you're passing it through a domain for NAT you can do it there

anyhow.)

> I am still working out the details of if/how to support
> QoS for applications that go off box.  One option is an application
> proxy on one domain and let it fully own the network interface, but
> that ends up being a lot of work for an essentially bent-pipe.  I
> suppose I could do some NAT over IPv6, .... Using the 169.254/16 for
> communications to the NAT point (does that have to be Domain0?)

No, any domain can be the NAT point.

> and assume that there is enough internal
> bandwidth (hence the above question) to avoid major performance issues
> until we hit the IPv6 interface (which is, by the way, a relatively
> slow link, < 1 Mb/s).

All this will be much easier in the new IO world...

Ian