Re: [MirageOS-devel] Network throughput and latency measurement on MirageOS

[Takayuki Imada <takayuki.imada@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mindy,

I have finished the first comparison, MirageOS VMs vs Linux VMs and found the 
throughput performance on MirageOS VMs with a larger sender buffer size is 
quite lower than my expectation.
- Configuration
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ti259/temp/config.pdf
- Throughput (64 - 2048 Bytes sender buffer size)
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ti259/temp/throughput.pdf
- Latency (TCP round-trip pingpong with a 1-Byte payload)
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ti259/temp/latency.pdf

I am now investigating what is a bottleneck by using the xentrace/xentop 
commands and the mirage-trace-viewer. I have also found the followings;
  - the vCPU utilization in the receiver side was reaching 100%
  - the sender side and Dom0 do not seem to be a bottleneck
    -> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ti259/temp/cpu.pdf

I will let you know when I have further findings.

Kind regards,

--
Takayuki Imada


On 1/10/17 6:30 PM, Mindy wrote:
> Hi Takayuki,
>
> Thanks for posting!  Do you have any comments on your findings with these tools 
> so far?  I'm particularly interested in performance regressions from the 
> serialization/deserialization changes in tcpip's current master.
>
> -Mindy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MirageOS-devel mailing list
> MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel
_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel