severity 665046 wishlist tags 665046 + unreproducible thanks On 22.03.2012 19:05, Michael Tokarev wrote: [] > There was no network-related changes between -8 and -9. > Macvtap performance has always been awful from the ground up, > but this is due to kernel not qemu. Reportedly it become a > bit better with latest kernels but I haven't checked. > At any rate using macvtap isn't a good idea at this stage.
And sure thing I completely disagree with the severity of the bugreport. Recommended tun device works just fine. So reducing severity to wishlist. There was one networking change between 1.0 and 1.0.1 (which went into -9): it is a bounds check in e1000 device, which is a fix for CVE-2012-0029. Still not performance-critical. I tested macvtap device on -8 and -9 briefly (had to tweak my regular bridge setup quite a bit for that to work), and I see exactly the same (bad) performance with both versions. Note also that qemu uses _exactly_ the same interface for tun and macvtap devices, it is one code. Macvtap kernel module exports the same ABI as regular tun. So it can't be qemu-related, because, as you confirm, vtun work fine. /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
