Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 23:50:03 +0000 From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Clint Armstrong <clint@clintarmstrong.net> Cc: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VNET performance Message-ID: <221F8CBD-0763-4457-A587-948E887FAD17@lists.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <CAJMTyCF956CYHa6JVQ7zuHODM5im%2B3%2B4MPmSTnqDCy7HXiSD8g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJMTyCF956CYHa6JVQ7zuHODM5im%2B3%2B4MPmSTnqDCy7HXiSD8g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10 Jul 2014, at 20:45 , Clint Armstrong <clint@clintarmstrong.net> = wrote: > What is the expected network performance of a VNET jail for network > communication between the jail and the host, or between multiple = jails? I > expected it to approach the 10Gbps of the epair device, but I'm not = seeing > that. >=20 > I see between 800 - 1200 Mbps in standard iperf tests both between the = host > bridge interface and the vnet jail inteface. I see the same poor = speeds if > I make 2 vnet jails and put one side of the epair in each and test = between > them. >=20 > Is the overhead of vnet causing this? Is there anything I can do to = improve > this performance. >=20 > I=92ve tested and seen similar performance on 10.0-RELEASE and = 11.0-CURRENT. epair has a netisr queuing in between as you cannot call the input = routines directly from the output routines. I was able to get a bit = more traffic through by doing pinning games. I wonder what a vale switch for vnets could achieve. =97=20 Bjoern A. Zeeb "Come on. Learn, goddamn it.", WarGames, 1983
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?221F8CBD-0763-4457-A587-948E887FAD17>