From owner-freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Mon Feb 17 09:10:28 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908F0252A5F for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:10:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roger.pau@citrix.com) Received: from esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com [216.71.155.144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com", Issuer "HydrantID SSL ICA G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48LdVq5NkKz3BwX for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:10:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roger.pau@citrix.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1581930627; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=IxEhWCyQgWv25l1AJ89+P+P/dj4QyTmO3tR87aBwbuk=; b=SRF4Y81RKUhelZt1jQrhBY2chr03n0sojmsWP3/GJ3sx419rmVMTFVdF 7MftxoI6M4+V2FDUqkZct/8d3Z6VQratAJUjE9kQSrAPOJI9ymLybv9TK TwwXiD99GXnO7ckwfxsqCJbsNNzZhYLKxHGrsh1A/9Hb/MMaBOBc1FUYB I=; Received-SPF: None (esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of roger.pau@citrix.com) identity=pra; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of roger.pau@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133 ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4 ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88 ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83 ip4:168.245.78.127 ~all" Received-SPF: None (esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible IronPort-SDR: D+OxT6fieCcdqVsHUBg8y43KkUCx6ZiTul7ys8J2Neawt4o2TYkNrnKLC8O9DcSUquIwc6moqK FYoy6e3fa7wUkULd8Tw8qgWqDFJpYdo72ld3LcDq4v8QojQSKFESc0H7kWBeAPhd/CIVifw0Oi daFkSan0CaqVDiCEkJvv2xbpMc2Sclgo+Mwpdq2chKhoOZZWnfSWysKwxPgP1HPLnV8Sl9kopj 1M7EAMp/DBpfwXOuoj5hG+W2dUEFNCIliynHLGIBtOcdxIIPKyxxNvrhwvQd5WDAX1j3FNtXRI b8Q= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 13177191 X-Ironport-Server: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,451,1574139600"; d="scan'208";a="13177191" Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:10:05 +0100 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Brian Buhrow CC: Subject: Re: Slow networking speeds with Freebsd 12.0 and Xen-4.12.1, freebsd-12.0 as dom0 Message-ID: <20200217091005.GJ3886@Air-de-Roger> References: <202002141746.01EHkg4t013758@lothlorien.nfbcal.org> <202002141815.01EIFmq9000641@lothlorien.nfbcal.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <202002141815.01EIFmq9000641@lothlorien.nfbcal.org> X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS01.citrite.net (10.69.22.112) To AMSPEX02CL01.citrite.net (10.69.22.125) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48LdVq5NkKz3BwX X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=citrix.com header.s=securemail header.b=SRF4Y81R; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=citrix.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of roger.pau@citrix.com designates 216.71.155.144 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=roger.pau@citrix.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.54 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[citrix.com:s=securemail]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_DKIM_ARC_DNSWL_MED(-0.50)[]; DWL_DNSWL_LOW(-1.00)[citrix.com.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.9.1]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[144.155.71.216.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.3.2]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[citrix.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[citrix.com,none]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:16417, ipnet:216.71.154.0/23, country:US]; IP_SCORE(-2.34)[ip: (-7.20), ipnet: 216.71.154.0/23(-3.11), asn: 16417(-1.35), country: US(-0.05)] X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:10:28 -0000 On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:15:48AM -0800, Brian Buhrow wrote: > hello. Ok. Perhaps I spoke too soon! the domu I was testing with, > which is an entirely pv guest, performs fine with FreeBSD. However, if I > take an hvm guest and run that using Intel E1000 emulation, my performance > drops back to 70 mbits/sec or so of throughput. For HVM guests, what kind > of network performance should I expect? That's hard to tell. My recommendation would be to try to install PV drivers to HVM guests if possible in order to get better performance. Performance of emulated nics is always going to be worse. Is the QEMU process in dom0 consuming lots of CPU when using the emulated nic? > I've been running pv guests for > years, but don't have much experience with hvm guests. > -thanks Guests using PV devices (that applies to HVM/PVH guests also) should always get better IO performance than those using emulated devices. Thanks, Roger.