From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4521793208 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 17:08:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 21A3B89EF for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 17:08:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 17:08:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D700947807 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 17:08:39 +0100 (CET) From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 17:08:35 +0100 Message-Id: <20230217160836.142368-4-f.ebner@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2 In-Reply-To: <20230217160836.142368-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20230217160836.142368-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.003 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH docs 3/4] qm: emulated devices: mention that virtio devices are better maintained X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 16:08:41 -0000 Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> --- qm.adoc | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/qm.adoc b/qm.adoc index 6fc6f5e..c3865cb 100644 --- a/qm.adoc +++ b/qm.adoc @@ -80,12 +80,12 @@ controller, a paravirtualized network card, a paravirtualized serial port, a paravirtualized SCSI controller, etc ... It is highly recommended to use the virtio devices whenever you can, as they -provide a big performance improvement. Using the virtio generic disk controller -versus an emulated IDE controller will double the sequential write throughput, -as measured with `bonnie++(8)`. Using the virtio network interface can deliver -up to three times the throughput of an emulated Intel E1000 network card, as -measured with `iperf(1)`. footnote:[See this benchmark on the KVM wiki -https://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Using_VirtIO_NIC] +provide a big performance improvement and are generally better maintained. Using +the virtio generic disk controller versus an emulated IDE controller will double +the sequential write throughput, as measured with `bonnie++(8)`. Using the +virtio network interface can deliver up to three times the throughput of an +emulated Intel E1000 network card, as measured with `iperf(1)`. footnote:[See +this benchmark on the KVM wiki https://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Using_VirtIO_NIC] [[qm_virtual_machines_settings]] -- 2.30.2