From owner-freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Fri Feb 14 18:15:56 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 A20AC23CD3A for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 18:15:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from buhrow@lothlorien.nfbcal.org) Received: from lothlorien.nfbcal.org (ns.NFBCAL.ORG [157.22.230.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "nfbcal.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48K1lb6y89z3yc0 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 18:15:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from buhrow@lothlorien.nfbcal.org) Received: from lothlorien.nfbcal.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lothlorien.nfbcal.org (8.15.2/8.14.1-NFBNETBSD) with ESMTPS id 01EIFmd7021819 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:15:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.3 at lothlorien.nfbcal.org Received: (from buhrow@localhost) by lothlorien.nfbcal.org (8.15.2/8.12.11) id 01EIFmq9000641; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:15:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <202002141815.01EIFmq9000641@lothlorien.nfbcal.org> From: Brian Buhrow Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:15:48 -0800 In-Reply-To: <202002141746.01EHkg4t013758@lothlorien.nfbcal.org> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 beta(4.pl1)+dynamic 20000103) To: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= Subject: Re: Slow networking speeds with Freebsd 12.0 and Xen-4.12.1, freebsd-12.0 as dom0 Cc: , buhrow@nfbcal.org X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (lothlorien.nfbcal.org [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:15:49 -0800 (PST) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48K1lb6y89z3yc0 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of buhrow@lothlorien.nfbcal.org designates 157.22.230.125 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=buhrow@lothlorien.nfbcal.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.23 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.990,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a:ns.nfbcal.org:c]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.99)[-0.994,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[nfbcal.org]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-0.24)[ip: (-0.00), ipnet: 157.22.0.0/16(-0.64), asn: 7091(-0.51), country: US(-0.05)]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[buhrow@nfbcal.org,buhrow@lothlorien.nfbcal.org]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7091, ipnet:157.22.0.0/16, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[buhrow@nfbcal.org,buhrow@lothlorien.nfbcal.org]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] 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: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 18:15:56 -0000 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? I've been running pv guests for years, but don't have much experience with hvm guests. -thanks