Veth openvz vs virtio kvm. Which is a faster one?

GospodinAbdula

New Member
Jul 25, 2014
22
0
1
Hello!

I have to implement a very hight load network router on a virtual machine and i have some doubts about which is a VM i need to use.

I'd like to use openvz, but i don't know who the best in network perfomance kvm virtio or veth openvz?

Can you advice me?
 
Last edited:
i did iperf test on 1GB link:

openvz veth:
Code:
# uname -a
Linux 2.6.32-37-pve #1 SMP Wed Feb 11 10:00:27 CET 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
.....
[SUM]  0.0-30.1 sec  3.24 GBytes  925 Mbits/sec
.....
[SUM]  0.0-30.1 sec  3.23 GBytes  923 Mbits/sec
.....
[SUM]  0.0- 2.5 sec  274 MBytes  927 Mbits/sec
....

kvm virtio:
Code:
# uname -a
Linux 3.10.0-123.9.3.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Nov 6 15:06:03 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
.....
[SUM]  0.0-30.1 sec  3.13 GBytes  893 Mbits/sec
.....
[SUM]  0.0-30.1 sec  3.13 GBytes  893 Mbits/sec
.....
[SUM]  0.0-30.1 sec  3.16 GBytes  903 Mbits/sec
.....
 
And some ICMP tests:

OPENVZ VETH:
simple icmp:

Code:
root@serv1:~# ping -q -s 1 -f 192.168.110.173 -c 100000
PING 192.168.110.173 (192.168.110.173) 1(29) bytes of data.
--- 192.168.110.173 ping statistics ---
100000 packets transmitted, 100000 received, 0% packet loss, time 52435ms
ipg/ewma 0.524/0.000 ms

root@serv1:~# ping -q -s 1 -f 192.168.110.173 -c 100000
PING 192.168.110.173 (192.168.110.173) 1(29) bytes of data.
--- 192.168.110.173 ping statistics ---
100000 packets transmitted, 100000 received, 0% packet loss, time 52158ms
ipg/ewma 0.521/0.000 ms

root@serv1:~# ping -q -s 1 -f 192.168.110.173 -c 100000
PING 192.168.110.173 (192.168.110.173) 1(29) bytes of data.
--- 192.168.110.173 ping statistics ---
100000 packets transmitted, 100000 received, 0% packet loss, time 52515ms
ipg/ewma 0.525/0.000 ms

100000 / 52.4 = 1908 pps
100000 / 52.1 = 1919 pps
100000 / 52.5 = 1904 pps


bombard icmp:
Code:
root@serv1:~# time hping3 192.168.110.173 -q -i u15 --icmp | tail -n10
--- 192.168.110.173 hping statistic ---
502960 packets transmitted, 501933 packets received, 1% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 0.4/0.6/9.9 ms

real   0m13.881s
user   0m2.341s
sys   0m7.404s

root@serv1:~# time hping3 192.168.110.173 -q -i u15 --icmp | tail -n10
--- 192.168.110.173 hping statistic ---
259442 packets transmitted, 258817 packets received, 1% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 0.4/0.6/9.5 ms

real   0m7.213s
user   0m1.203s
sys   0m3.816s

root@serv1:~# time hping3 192.168.110.173 -q -i u15 --icmp | tail -n10
--- 192.168.110.173 hping statistic ---
537561 packets transmitted, 536051 packets received, 1% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 0.4/0.6/10.7 ms

real   0m14.963s
user   0m2.559s
sys   0m7.901s

501933 / 13.881 = 36159 pps
258817 / 7.213 = 35882 pps
536051 / 14.963 = 35825 pps


KVM VIRTIO:
simple icmp

Code:
root@serv1:~# ping -q -s 1 -f 192.168.110.172 -c 100000
PING 192.168.110.172 (192.168.110.172) 1(29) bytes of data.
--- 192.168.110.172 ping statistics ---
100000 packets transmitted, 100000 received, 0% packet loss, time 58349ms
ipg/ewma 0.583/0.000 ms

root@serv1:~# ping -q -s 1 -f 192.168.110.172 -c 100000
PING 192.168.110.172 (192.168.110.172) 1(29) bytes of data.
--- 192.168.110.172 ping statistics ---
100000 packets transmitted, 100000 received, 0% packet loss, time 58449ms
pipe 2, ipg/ewma 0.584/0.000 ms

root@serv1:~# ping -q -s 1 -f 192.168.110.172 -c 100000
PING 192.168.110.172 (192.168.110.172) 1(29) bytes of data.
--- 192.168.110.172 ping statistics ---
100000 packets transmitted, 100000 received, 0% packet loss, time 58488ms
ipg/ewma 0.584/0.000 ms

100000 / 58.4 = 1712
100000 / 58.3 = 1715
100000 / 58.4 = 1712


bombard icmp:
Code:
root@serv1:~# time hping3 192.168.110.172 -q -i u15 --icmp | tail -n10
--- 192.168.110.172 hping statistic ---
515753 packets transmitted, 513793 packets received, 1% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 0.5/0.6/10.0 ms

real   0m14.182s
user   0m2.474s
sys   0m7.291s

root@serv1:~# time hping3 192.168.110.172 -q -i u15 --icmp | tail -n10
--- 192.168.110.172 hping statistic ---
276936 packets transmitted, 275911 packets received, 1% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 0.4/0.6/11.3 ms

real   0m7.710s
user   0m1.355s
sys   0m4.035

root@serv1:~# time hping3 192.168.110.172 -q -i u15 --icmp | tail -n10
--- 192.168.110.172 hping statistic ---
566524 packets transmitted, 564043 packets received, 1% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 0.4/0.6/10.0 ms

real   0m15.828s
user   0m3.084s
sys   0m7.839s

513793 / 14.182 = 36228 pps
275911 / 7.710 = 35786 pps
564043 / 15.828 = 35635 pps


I think, Openvz VETH is more performance than Virtio KVM.
All tests were on a clean system and without tuning the ip stack.
What do you think?
 
Last edited:

About

The Proxmox community has been around for many years and offers help and support for Proxmox VE, Proxmox Backup Server, and Proxmox Mail Gateway.
We think our community is one of the best thanks to people like you!

Get your subscription!

The Proxmox team works very hard to make sure you are running the best software and getting stable updates and security enhancements, as well as quick enterprise support. Tens of thousands of happy customers have a Proxmox subscription. Get yours easily in our online shop.

Buy now!