• UltimateBachson@alien.topOPB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, testing iperf from those VMs to another LAN machine machine unsurprisingly never exceeds 1Gbps (my other LAN machine doesn’t support 2.5), but VMWare is still slower. Maybe it’s due to Workstation using the 13700k e-cores, as someone else commented.

    The thing is since my Win11 PC is hosting those 2 VMs I’d expect VM-HOST/HOST-VM network transfers to be faster, even using NAT instead of bridged, yes, it does improve the transfer speeds. but VMWare is still behind Vbox, even with vmxnet3 instead of e1000.

    Anyway, thanks for the reply, it might as well come down to being a “Windows thing”, I never had these inconsistencies on a proxmox host, for example.

    • cbugk@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ok a bit of trivia out of my chest first [source][1]:

      • Para-virtualization is guest being aware to call high level command to hypervisor, rather than calling hardware commands.
      • Hardware assisted virtualization: Silicon having instructions to fasten virtualization.

      I thought those two were inseperable for some time, turns out they were not.

      This seems irrelevant, but VMXNET3 could be paravirtualized but not hardware assisted by virtue (emulated E1000)

      While [PVRDMA][2] (allowing shared memory between VMs which have PVRDMA) does similar to what Ilinux bridges does by defauit (IPTABLES forwarding without emulation). Hardware assisted para-virtualization by virtue :D

      This has the potential to run above 1Gbit, could you try?

      1 2