|
||||||||
On 11/05/2010 09:05, Xavier Beaudouin wrote: > Hi there, > > Le 10 mai 2010 à 23:42, Roberto Greiner a écrit : > > >> On 10/05/2010 18:40, Roberto Greiner wrote: >> >>> On 10/05/2010 18:30, Manuel Kasper wrote: >>> >>>> On 10.05.2010, at 23:21, Roberto Greiner wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> It´s a Virtual Machine inside a Core II Duo 3Ghz, with 768MB. The throughput is in the range of 10Mbps in, 3-5Mbps out. >>>>> >>>> OK... what kind of virtualization solution? If it's VMware, then make sure that you're using the e1000 NIC emulation (should appear as emX device in m0n0wall, rather than lncX). This can be achieved by adding ethernetX.virtualDev = "e1000" to the .vmx file. >>>> >>>> I haven't tested any other virtualization solutions, but using VMware + e1000 on that hardware, you should easily be able to push well over 100 Mbps through your m0n0wall VM. >>>> >>>> >>> No, we are using Xen Citrix Server, version 5.5. I can´t say what the server does present exactly to the virtual machine, but Monowall identifies it 're0' (probably realtek). >>> >> Ops, rechecked it: It´s appearing as a Realtek 8139C. >> > I don't use Xen Citrix Server, but on some Xen implementation you can have... e1000 as well... > > Xavier > No, I just got an answer on the Citrix mail list, and in full virtualization the host will always be presented with a Realtek interface. One way to change that would be trying open source Xen, and that would require changes to the source code. Other way would be going to paravirtualization. I´m not sure about the viability of that, but will investigate. The main problem is that i´m not sure that the interface emulation is really the problem. Is there any way to verify that? Tks, Roberto -- ----------------------------------------------------- Marcos Roberto Greiner Os otimistas acham que estamos no melhor dos mundos Os pessimistas tem medo de que isto seja verdade James Branch Cabell ----------------------------------------------------- |