On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org> wrote:
> Benjamin Thery wrote:
>  > Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>  >> Hi,
>  >>
>  >> Some performance tests was made by Benjamin to watch out the impact of
>  >> the network namespace. The good news is there is no impact when used
>  >> with or without namespaces. That has been checked using a real network
>  >> device inside a network namespace.
>  >>
>  >> These results are consistent with the ones previously made for ipv4.
>  >>
>  >> http://lxc.sourceforge.net/network/bench_ipv6_graph.php
>  >>
>  >> Thanks to Benjamin who did all the performance tests :)
>  >
>  > In these results, may be, there is one thing that should be explained.
>  > It is the CPU utilization overhead in the 'veth' case.
>  >
>  > Compared to physical devices or macvlan, veth interfaces don't benefit
>  > from hardware offloading mechanisms: i.e. checksums have to be computed
>  > by the soft. That explains the big overhead in CPU utilization when
>
>  You can tune the veth devices not to account checksum when unnecessary.

Oh. This is interesting.

You mean with ethtool -K rx/tx?
I will give it a try.

Benjamin

>
>
>  > using this kind of virtual interface.
>  >
>  > Benjamin
>  >
>  >> Regards
>  >>     -- Daniel
>  >>

>--
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>  the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>  More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers