Benjamin Thery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> A couple of random thoughts in trying to understand the numbers you are
>> seeing.
>>
>> - Checksum offloading?
>>
>> You have noted that with the bridge netfilter support disabled you
>> are still seeing additional chec
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
as suggested Rick, I added the Service Demand results to the matrix.
A couple of random thoughts in trying to understand the numbers you are
seeing.
- Checksum offloading?
You have noted that with the bridge netfilte
Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> as suggested Rick, I added the Service Demand results to the matrix.
A couple of random thoughts in trying to understand the numbers you are
seeing.
- Checksum offloading?
You have noted that with the bridge netfilter support disabled you
Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> as suggested Rick, I added the Service Demand results to the matrix.
Thanks. The latency number is interesting and it confirms what we were
seeing looking at cpu usage.
We don't have an inexpesive way to get a packet from the outside world
t
Hi,
as suggested Rick, I added the Service Demand results to the matrix.
Cheers.
Hi,
I did some benchmarking on the existing L2 network namespaces.
These patches are included in the lxc patchset at:
http://lxc.sourceforge.net/patches/2.6.20
The lxc7 patchset series conta
Benjamin Thery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>> * When do you expect to have the network namespace into mainline ?
>> My current goal is to finish my rebase against 2.6.linus_lastest in
>> the next couple of days a
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
* When do you expect to have the network namespace into mainline ?
My current goal is to finish my rebase against 2.6.linus_lastest in
the next couple of days after having figured out how to deal with sysfs.
Great ne
Do you have any pointer to help on benchmarking the network, perhaps a
checklist or some scripts for netperf ?
There are some scripts in doc/examples but they are probably a bit long
in the tooth by now.
The main writeup _I_ have on netperf would be the manual, which was
recently updated for
Rick Jones wrote:
If I read the results right it took a 32bit machine from AMD with
a gigabit interface before you could measure a throughput difference.
That isn't shabby for a non-optimized code path.
Just some paranoid ramblings - one needs to look beyond just whether
or not the performance
If I read the results right it took a 32bit machine from AMD with
a gigabit interface before you could measure a throughput difference.
That isn't shabby for a non-optimized code path.
Just some paranoid ramblings - one needs to look beyond just whether or
not the performance of a bulk transfer
Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Ideally we can optimize the bridge code or something equivalent to
>> it so that we can take one look at the destination mac address and
>> know which network namespace we should be in. Potentially moving this
>> work to hardware when the hardware s
Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> 3. General observations
>>> ---
>>>
>>> The objective to have no performances degrations, when the network
>>> namespace is off in the kernel, is reached i
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
3. General observations
---
The objective to have no performances degrations, when the network
namespace is off in the kernel, is reached in both solutions.
When the network is used outside the container a
>>The loss of performances is very noticeable inside the container and
>>seems to be directly related to the usage of the pair device and the
>>specific network configuration needed for the container. When the
>>packets are sent by the container, the mac address is for the pair
>>device but the IP
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:16:34AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Hi,
[ cut ]
3. General observations
---
The objective to have no performances degrations, when the network
namespace is off in the kernel, is reached in both solutions.
When the networ
Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> 3. General observations
> ---
>
> The objective to have no performances degrations, when the network
> namespace is off in the kernel, is reached in both solutions.
>
> When the network is used outside the container and the network
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:16:34AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I did some benchmarking on the existing L2 network namespaces.
>
> These patches are included in the lxc patchset at:
> http://lxc.sourceforge.net/patches/2.6.20
> The lxc7 patchset series contains Dmitry's patchset
Hi,
I did some benchmarking on the existing L2 network namespaces.
These patches are included in the lxc patchset at:
http://lxc.sourceforge.net/patches/2.6.20
The lxc7 patchset series contains Dmitry's patchset
The lxc8 patchset series contains Eric's patchset
Here are the following scenar
18 matches
Mail list logo
