2012 21st International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN) 2012
DOI: 10.1109/icccn.2012.6289293
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance Analysis of Packet Capture Methods in a 10 Gbps Virtualized Environment

Abstract: Abstract-Network speeds are increasing and processor core counts rise while processor clock rates stagnate. This has led to both packet processing applications distributing their workload over several cores and virtualization of physical systems also using multiple cores. However, these two concepts are at odds with each other as both must take full advantage of multi-core systems for desirable performance.In this paper, we look at the performance considerations of dealing with 10 Gbps traffic rates in worst c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
(8 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the VM world, apart from the trivial case of directly mapped peripherals, already discussed [8], the problem has not seen many contributions in the literature so far. Among the most relevant: Measurements presented in [23] show that packet capture performance in VMs is significantly slower than on native hardware, but the study does not include the recent techniques mentioned above, nor proposes solutions. Interrupt coalescing and Virtual Receive Side Scaling have been studied in [10] within Xen; the system used in that paper is limited to about 100 Kpps per core, and the solutions proposed impose a heavy latency/throughput tradeoff and burn massive amounts of resources to scale performance.…”
Section: High Speed Networkingmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In the VM world, apart from the trivial case of directly mapped peripherals, already discussed [8], the problem has not seen many contributions in the literature so far. Among the most relevant: Measurements presented in [23] show that packet capture performance in VMs is significantly slower than on native hardware, but the study does not include the recent techniques mentioned above, nor proposes solutions. Interrupt coalescing and Virtual Receive Side Scaling have been studied in [10] within Xen; the system used in that paper is limited to about 100 Kpps per core, and the solutions proposed impose a heavy latency/throughput tradeoff and burn massive amounts of resources to scale performance.…”
Section: High Speed Networkingmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The influence of the virtualization platform on the performance of virtualized network interconnect devices has been elaborated on several papers, adopting different comparison approaches [6]- [11]. However, these comparisons are not accurate due to the exploited methodology of benchmarking Virtual Routers (VRs), as the comparison is performed at only one work point of the virtualized device.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As we run the Shield module in a virtual machine, performance issue in virtualized environments is a critical and open problem, which has already been discussed in Ref. [36]. We can further improve performance with vPF ring [37] in virtualized environments.…”
Section: Bottleneck Analysis Of Shieldmentioning
confidence: 99%