[OmniOS-discuss] Potential KVM Virtio Performance Issues

[John Barfield]

Okay found the problem. 

After further testing I achieved 952 MBytes on a VM-2-VM connection...1 
linux Ubuntu 12.04 vm to another CentOS 6.6 VM running on two different 
SmartOS host machines (through an extreme networks switch).

This was puzzling so I look at how joyent ran the VM’s command with 
pargs…I found that they do not use the following format:

-net nic,vlan=1,name=${VNIC2},model=virtio,macaddr=${mac2} \
-net vnic,vlan=1,name=${VNIC2},ifname=${VNIC2},macaddr=${mac2} \

They use this format:

-device \
virtio-net-pci,mac=02:08:20:5f:85:0d,tx=timer,x-txtimer=200000,x-txburst=12
8,vlan=0 \
 \
-net \
vnic,name=${VNIC1},vlan=0,ifname=${VNIC1} \




I’m not sure if the txtimer values did anything performance gaining or 
not…I’m pretty sure just switching to the -device configuration instead of 
the legacy -net nic configuration is what did the trick. 

If anyone wants me to I’ll test and see if that was the only difference. 

Have a great day!







John Barfield / Sr Principal Engineer
+1 (214) 425-0783/ john.barfield at bissinc.com
BISS, Inc. Office: +1 (214) 506-8354 

4925 Greenville Ave Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75206
support.bissinc.com <http://htmlsig.com/support.bissinc.com>
This e-mail message may contain confidential or legally privileged 
information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). 
Any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the 
taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is prohibited. 
E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they 
can be intercepted, amended, or contain viruses. Anyone who communicates 
with us by e-mail is deemed to have accepted these risks. Company Name is 
not responsible for errors or omissions in this message and denies any 
responsibility for any damage arising from the use of e-mail. Any opinion 
and other statement contained in this message and any attachment are 
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the 
company.






On 3/24/15, 2:29 PM, "John Barfield" <john.barfield at bissinc.com> wrote:

>Greetings OmnisOS community! This is my first time to ask a question on 
>this list so here goes. I’ve deployed a zone on omnios and a KVM virtual 
>machine within the zone. I’ve been doing some initial virtio network 
>interface performance testing with iperf and the following are my results 
>(default out of the box for all moving parts). 
>
>
>Host:
>OmniOS build stable: r151012
>Test Interfaces:
>GZ Phys = igb0
>KVM Vnic: kvm0 over igb0
>GZ Vnic: gvm0 over igb0
>Zone Vnic: zvm0 over igb0
>
>Network addressing: All vnics are with 10.128.255.249/29
>
>Zone Brand: Omni-ti ipkg
>Qemu-Kvm Guest: Centos 6.6 x86_64
>
>
>iPerf Results:
>
>KVM Guest -> Global Zone = 151 Mbytes (Expected close to 1 GByte)
>
>KVM Guest -> KVM Zone = 147 Mbytes (Expected close to 1 GByte)
>
>Zone -> Global Zone = 5.0GBytes (These were expected since it was a host 
>only VNIC network)
>
>GZ -> Zone = 4.7 Gbytes (These were expected since it was a host only 
>VNIC 
>network)
>
>
>My question is are there any tweaks that I’m missing to get the full 
>performance potential within the guest? Why am I only seeing 147 Mbytes 
>between KVM and the hosting zone or the global zone? 
>
>I’m testing with an isolated network and vnics only, so the traffic is 
>never leaving the physical host to go over the wire.
>
>I do have cpu capped at 16 cores and memory capped at 16GB of memory in 
>the zone. Is there some default network capping that I’m missing? Or 
>process throttling?
>
>MTU is 1500 across the board. 
>
>I did the same test with etherstubs at first but though maybe I was 
>having 
>an MTU mismatch because I received the same 147 Mbyte result…however a 
>subsequent test using just the GZ -> child zone showed 5.0GBps over the 
>etherstub switch just like when I only used the VNIC’s over igb0.  
>
>Also just for grins I tested two bare metal hosts on my physical network 
>with iperf…one being CentOS 6.5 and the other OmniOS build r151012 and 
>received 1.09 Gbytes over a physical switch. 
>
>Your thoughts are appreciated!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>John Barfield / Sr Principal Engineer
>+1 (214) 425-0783/ john.barfield at bissinc.com
>BISS, Inc. Office: +1 (214) 506-8354 
>
>4925 Greenville Ave Suite 900
>Dallas, TX 75206
>support.bissinc.com <http://htmlsig.com/support.bissinc.com>
>_______________________________________________
>OmniOS-discuss mailing list
>OmniOS-discuss at lists.omniti.com
>http://lists.omniti.com/mailman/listinfo/omnios-discuss