2010/2/20 S.Tindall <tindall.satwth at brandxmail.com>: > > On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 02:41 +0100, Kenni Lund wrote: >> 2010/2/18 compdoc <compdoc at hotrodpc.com>: >> > I would also just use the e1000 emulation. Theres nothing >> > better about the virtio devices... >> >> ...other than lower CPU utilization and higher throughout? Since these >> are CentOS/RHEL guests, I wouldn't even consider using e1000, I would >> just go for virtio_net. >> >> I don't have any links, but some time ago there were some benchmarks >> (on the KVM development list?), showing the e1000 maxing out at around >> 300-400mbit/s while the virtio got around 900mbit/s. Even with the >> much higher throughput, the virtio_net driver still had the same or >> lower CPU utilization. >> >> Do your own testing if in doubt. >> >> Best Regards >> Kenni Lund > > Are you using test-signed drivers or do you have a redistributable > source for release-signed drivers (that chain to a microsoft root)? I don't think that anyone are talking about Windows in this thread? You don't need Microsoft signing of drivers for Linux guests ;) > Never got the chance to test relative performance of e1000 vs the netkvm > drivers on a M$ guest, but on a centos5 guest, virtio absolutely blows > the doors off e1000 performance. > > Using ttcp in both directions, typical C5-host-to-C5-guests for e1000 > was in the 30-60MB/s range and virtio was in the 300-400MB/s range. Exactly... :) Best Regards Kenni Lund