Network packet size over MTU in guests
Hi,
We use KVM 75 on Gentoo hosts with kernel 2.6.27.8 with a variety of guests (Windows XP, 2000, 2003 & several Linux distributions) in a production setup. The hosts are Intel Xeon based. We use bridged networking with E1000 model inside of guests.
Recently, we began to have network problem (slowdowns, lags, timeouts) on several guests. Inside those guests, we saw with tcpdump that there were packets with a size well over MTU. On the host, tcpdump on the guest tap did show packets of 1500 bytes and that's all. For some of the guests (Debian based), changing the NIC model to rtl8139 instead of e1000 "fixed" the problem, but for others (Gentoo kernel 2.6.27.19) it didn't.
Would it be a glitch in the KVM code or a driver problem ? Does this ring a bell to anyone ?
Thanks.
FT
begin:vcard
fn:Fabrice Toppi
n:Toppi;Fabrice
org:Openweb
adr:;;Rue Bois de Wellenne, 20;Jambes;;5100;Belgique email;internet:[email protected]
tel;work:+32.(0)70.661213
tel;fax:+32.(0)81.261517
note;quoted-printable:ADSL-SDSL connections on our own professionnal secure network=0D=0A=
VOIP - Hosting - Housing=0D=0A=
Registering and management of domain names and mails=0D=0A=
VPN and private networks -Virtual desks ...
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.openweb.be/
version:2.1
end:vcard
Quoted 9 lines · Fabrice Toppi
Hi,
We use KVM 75 on Gentoo hosts with kernel 2.6.27.8 with a variety of guests (Windows XP, 2000, 2003 & several Linux distributions) in a production setup. The hosts are Intel Xeon based. We use bridged networking with E1000 model inside of guests.
Recently, we began to have network problem (slowdowns, lags, timeouts) on several guests. Inside those guests, we saw with tcpdump that there were packets with a size well over MTU. On the host, tcpdump on the guest tap did show packets of 1500 bytes and that's all. For some of the guests (Debian based), changing the NIC model to rtl8139 instead of e1000 "fixed" the problem, but for others (Gentoo kernel 2.6.27.19) it didn't.
Would it be a glitch in the KVM code or a driver problem ? Does this ring a bell to anyone ?
I'm not sure anymore but I think it's very similar to what I had here with pre-78 (approx again, since it was quite some time ago) versions of kvm compiled with older kernel headers (without appropriate if_tun.h definitions).
I'd say try to reproduce it with 0.11.0 kvm userspace compiled against 2.6.27+ kernel headers. But yet again: kvm-75 is quite old by now, so it's difficult to remember all the details.
/mjt