From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 26 12:06:47 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3B2437F for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:06:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from SMTP02.CITRIX.COM (smtp02.citrix.com [66.165.176.63]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.citrix.com", Issuer "Cybertrust Public SureServer SV CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D89014CD for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:06:46 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,933,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="123878740" Received: from accessns.citrite.net (HELO FTLPEX01CL03.citrite.net) ([10.9.154.239]) by FTLPIPO02.CITRIX.COM with ESMTP; 26 Apr 2014 12:06:44 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (10.80.16.47) by smtprelay.citrix.com (10.13.107.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 08:06:44 -0400 Message-ID: <535BA152.6080300@citrix.com> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 14:06:42 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Um9nZXIgUGF1IE1vbm7DqQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "seanrees@gmail.com" Subject: Re: VM in Xen 4.1; poor packet forwarding performance on xn0 References: <53567847.10203@citrix.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DLP: MIA1 Cc: "freebsd-xen@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:06:48 -0000 On 26/04/14 13:57, seanrees@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Roger, > > Thanks for the patch -- sadly, it didn't work. No change. Hello, > > I did have to modify a bit for releng/10.0; for some reason patch > refused to apply it cleanly. It looked fairly straightforward but I > attached inline the patch I ultimately applied below just in case I got > it wrong. Patch looks fine. > Are there any other potential differences between Xen 3.4 and 4.1? (my > provider migrated my problem VPS to a 3.4 host and the problem > evaporated; I am trying this on a new 4.1 VPS that I was able to > reproduce the problem on). I'm quite sure this is not related to the underlying Xen version, but to the Linux Dom0 kernel version your provider is using, could you ask them the Linux versions they are using on the 4.1 and 3.4 hosts? Roger.