From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 17 18:12:40 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293F916A418 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:12:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cyberbotx@cyberbotx.com) Received: from rwcrmhc14.comcast.net (rwcrmhc14.comcast.net [216.148.227.154]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E82413C46B for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:12:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cyberbotx@cyberbotx.com) Received: from samus.cyberbotx.com ([68.62.97.217]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc14) with ESMTP id <20070917180223m1400l97nme>; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:02:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.cyberbotx.com [127.0.0.1]) by samus.cyberbotx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD1A1723F for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:02:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cyberbotx.com Received: from samus.cyberbotx.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (samus.cyberbotx.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kSH+qWzj8wEs for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:02:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from metroid (unknown [192.168.2.2]) by samus.cyberbotx.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A6B0170F9 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:02:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <021301c7f954$d9ceb440$0f02000a@metroid> From: "Naram Qashat" To: Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:02:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896 Subject: Question regarding QEMU's networking X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:12:40 -0000 I was wondering which method of networking works better with QEMU, tuntap or user-mode. Currently I'm using user-mode networking. My system is running an Intel Pentium D 2.8GHz with 2GB of RAM. I run Windows 2000 as a guest inside QEMU. Lately I've been experiencing the following problem with QEMU: During normal operation of the system (everything but QEMU being mostly idle), QEMU has no problems. Inside QEMU, I run mIRC under Windows 2000. I run QEMU at a -19 nice level. QEMU is running under a user account, not root. When something outside QEMU (such as me running an emulator or even doing a portupgrade) starts to take up some of the CPU, after a couple minutes, mIRC will lose connection with the message "Software caused connection abort [10053]". Reading up on this, it seems this is a Windows Winsock error message meaning it disconnected because it didn't get a reply back within a timeout period. Strangely, I could be disconnected just a second or two after receiving a message from the IRC server. This only seems to happen when the system isn't completely idle (unless it's only QEMU making the system be at 100% CPU, then there is no problem). So the real reason for my question is wondering if using QEMU's tuntap would work better and stop this problem from happening, or if it'll still happen anyways. If it would help, I plan on using the clone_interfaces option of rc.conf to add bridge0, and then add my network interface (nve0) to the bridge, and make /etc/qemu-ifup activate the tap device when it makes it and add that to the bridge if needed. Thanks, Naram Qashat