From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jun.xiao@cloudnetengine.com>
Received: from out1134-201.mail.aliyun.com (out1134-201.mail.aliyun.com
 [42.120.134.201]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064615A43
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:48:53 +0200 (CEST)
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=CONTINUE; BC=0.08631396|-1; FP=0|0|0|0|0|-1|-1|-1;
 HT=e02c03299; MF=jun.xiao@cloudnetengine.com; NM=1; PH=DS; RN=3; RT=3; SR=0; 
Received: from 192.168.1.104(mailfrom:jun.xiao@cloudnetengine.com
 ip:113.45.201.174) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(10.147.38.154);
 Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:48:50 +0800
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Jun Xiao <jun.xiao@cloudnetengine.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B466)
In-Reply-To: <738D45BC1F695740A983F43CFE1B7EA92E2BEFD4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:48:51 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9D0E6ED2-6171-4EF5-AD21-01B1844B5136@cloudnetengine.com>
References: <----Tc------lRRzc$3e501353-5ebe-4161-b9d4-01ebdf81a6de@cloudnetengine.com>
 <738D45BC1F695740A983F43CFE1B7EA92E2BEF4B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <F22B6292-38B7-4D9D-94CA-154FFF2C6B75@cloudnetengine.com>
 <738D45BC1F695740A983F43CFE1B7EA92E2BEFD4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
To: "Gray, Mark D" <mark.d.gray@intel.com>
Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>, discuss <discuss@openvswitch.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [ovs-discuss] vswitches performance comparison
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:48:55 -0000



> On Jul 22, 2015, at 2:36 AM, Gray, Mark D <mark.d.gray@intel.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>>=20
>> I'd like to hope that's my methodology problem, but I just follow the
>> installation guide without any customization.
>>=20
>> Hi Mark, do you have any performance data share with us? Maybe we are
>> using different type of workloads, like I mentioned I am using typical da=
ta
>> center workload, I guess you are talking about NFV type of workload?
>=20
> The number getting floated around on the mailing list recently is 16.5Mpps=

> for phy-phy. However, I don't think we have any iperf data off-hand for yo=
ur
> usecase. When we test throughput into the vm we usually generate the traff=
ic externally
> and send NIC->OVS->VM->OVS->NIC. This is a little different to your setup.=

>=20

I guess pmd driver is used inside VM in that case, right?
> I do know, however, that ovs-dpdk typically has a much larger throughput t=
han
> the kernel space datapath.
>=20

I'd like to say it depends on workloads, for small/medium packet size worklo=
ad, that's definitely true, while for TSO size workload, it's not that obvio=
us (or worse) as data path overheads are amortized and H/W can be leveraged.=

> Have you seen this? https://wiki.opnfv.org/characterize_vswitch_performanc=
e_for_telco_nfv_use_cases
>=20

Thanks for the pointer, I'll try later.
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>> Jun