Bug#668594:

2012-04-15 Thread Michael Tokarev
On 16.04.2012 10:25, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote: >> And especially if first, simple, kvm1.0 variant >> _does_ show the bad speed already, there's no need >> to try others, since the prob might be somewhere >> else entirely: this binary is equivalent to what >> was in 1.0-8 but rebuilt using current

Bug#668594:

2012-04-15 Thread Hans-Kristian Bakke
> And especially if first, simple, kvm1.0 variant > _does_ show the bad speed already, there's no need > to try others, since the prob might be somewhere > else entirely: this binary is equivalent to what > was in 1.0-8 but rebuilt using current toolchain > from wheezy. Interesting. I tried your b

Bug#668594: testing

2012-04-15 Thread Michael Tokarev
On 16.04.2012 00:41, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote: >> As for the network-related issues, indeed, this is something which >> is quite unexpected. I browsed all changes between 1.0 and 1.0.1, >> but I don't see a single change which may have this effect... > > I am no dev but I would guess that severa

Bug#668594:

2012-04-15 Thread Hans-Kristian Bakke
> As for the network-related issues, indeed, this is something which > is quite unexpected. I browsed all changes between 1.0 and 1.0.1, > but I don't see a single change which may have this effect... I am no dev but I would guess that several gbit/s of TCP-traffic may trigger any regressions in

Bug#668594:

2012-04-15 Thread Michael Tokarev
On 15.04.2012 13:51, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote: > Per you request I downloaded qemu-kvm_1.0+dfsg-8_amd64.deb from > snapshot.debian.org and lo and behold: 19.1 gbit/s! Thank you very much for testing this! > In other words there is a massive network efficiency regression > between -8 and -9. Even

Bug#668594:

2012-04-15 Thread Hans-Kristian Bakke
Per you request I downloaded qemu-kvm_1.0+dfsg-8_amd64.deb from snapshot.debian.org and lo and behold: 19.1 gbit/s! In other words there is a massive network efficiency regression between -8 and -9. Even though there are no network related changes between the versions I noticed that I had to chang

Bug#668594: qemu-kvm: Suboptimal virtio/vhost-net performance on Debian KVM hosts compared to others

2012-04-14 Thread Michael Tokarev
On 13.04.2012 13:46, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote: > Package: qemu-kvm > Version: 1.0+dfsg-9 > Severity: normal > > I cannot get optimal network througput on KVM guest using Debian Wheezy (and > stable) as KVM host. > It is not horribly bad, just not good compared to relevant alternatives. > > I ha

Bug#668594: qemu-kvm: Suboptimal virtio/vhost-net performance on Debian KVM hosts compared to others

2012-04-13 Thread Hans-Kristian Bakke
Package: qemu-kvm Version: 1.0+dfsg-9 Severity: normal I cannot get optimal network througput on KVM guest using Debian Wheezy (and stable) as KVM host. It is not horribly bad, just not good compared to relevant alternatives. I have tried Ubuntu Server 11.10, Proxmox 1.9, Proxmox 2.0 and Fedora