On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > I have just run the numbers on ARM64 (APM m400) and it is still much > > > faster than netfront/netback. This is what I get by running iperf -c in > > > a VM and iperf -s in Dom0: > > > > > > PVCalls Netfront/Netback > > > -P 1 9.9 gbit/s 4.53 gbit/s > > > -P 2 17.4 gbit/s 5.57 gbit/s > > > -P 4 24.36 gbit/s 5.34 gbit/s > > > > > > PVCalls is still significantly faster than Netfront/Netback. > > This seems to be not a really fair comparison. And does not reflect > > performance impact of the data copying itself. > > Why it is not a fair comparison? Because the design is different or > because of the settings? I am happy to adjust benchmarking settings to > make the comparison fairer. Actually it turns out that Netfront/Netback use another form of copy: grant copies. So you are right that this comparison doesn't really reflect copy vs. mapping performance.
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
