Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:50:04 -0600 (CST) From: Bryan Venteicher <bryanv@daemoninthecloset.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VMware vmxnet2 driver Message-ID: <276815060.931.1358531404055.JavaMail.root@daemoninthecloset.org> In-Reply-To: <kdb9ki$vkb$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ivan Voras" <ivoras@freebsd.org> > To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 4:54:12 AM > Subject: Re: VMware vmxnet2 driver > > On 14/01/2013 07:42, Bryan Venteicher wrote: > > > Any testing or performance data is welcome. For bulk TCP transfers, > > if_vic > > will tend to be faster than em (~1/2 a magnitude) due to TSO, but I > > don't > > think that warrants merging into HEAD yet. > > Considering that from your description the current situation is: > > * The driver isn't *worse* than either em or the "official" > VMWare driver (right?) > * There is currently no vmxnet driver at all in HEAD > > ... I don't think including the driver will harm anyone or anything, > but it may make things a bit simpler when configuring VMs. > > It is typically no better than em (*) - but better in certain cases with TSO. The official driver didn't compile on HEAD and I couldn't bring myself to spend the time to fix it. I'll look into it this weekend and do an initial comparison. A vmxnet3 driver would be far more useful to have in the tree. * I'm running ESXi nested in VMware Fusion but I don't think that would explain the discrepancy.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?276815060.931.1358531404055.JavaMail.root>