Thank you for everything.
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 05:31:04PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 07:02:30PM -0600, clow...@clownix.net wrote:
>> > The associated file contains a README that will guide you through the
>> > experiment that shows the difference between unix soc
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 05:31:04PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 07:02:30PM -0600, clow...@clownix.net wrote:
> > The associated file contains a README that will guide you through the
> > experiment that shows the difference between unix socket carried pings:
> > 0.7ms and
Il 26/02/2013 17:51, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 05:31:04PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 07:02:30PM -0600, clow...@clownix.net wrote:
>>> The associated file contains a README that will guide you through the
>>> experiment that shows the diff
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 05:31:04PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 07:02:30PM -0600, clow...@clownix.net wrote:
> > The associated file contains a README that will guide you through the
> > experiment that shows the difference between unix socket carried pings:
> > 0.7ms and
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 07:02:30PM -0600, clow...@clownix.net wrote:
> The associated file contains a README that will guide you through the
> experiment that shows the difference between unix socket carried pings:
> 0.7ms and inet carried pings: 40ms!!!
There is no fundamental reason for inet soc
You know the inet sockets in qemu:
...
-net socket,vlan=1,connect=127.0.0.1:47654
...
Well, a bug I looked into lead me to code a very simple process doing a
"cable" between two machines connected with this config. This setup gave
surprising results and lead me to compare ping timings between this
