-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 65
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Doc: add raven performance test #217
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
## 结论及分析 | ||
|
||
- 相较于同边访问:云-边互访带宽比为42.37(同边带宽/云-边带宽),边-云-边互访带宽比为3579.02(同边带宽/边-云-边带宽) | ||
- 相较于同边访问:云-边互访延迟比为0.02(同边延迟/云-边延迟),边-云-边互访延迟比为0.01(同边延迟/边-云-边延迟) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
最后的结论分析,感觉主要还是物理网络造成的,无法体现raven本身的性能吧?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
我的想法是主要是体现使用raven进行跨边通信的网络性能(延迟和带宽)比直接使用cni的同边通信要差,物理网络也是一方面?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
嗯,主要是NodePool内部的cni通信,走的是内网,而云边raven走的是公网
ba05422
to
874ae18
Compare
874ae18
to
04de363
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please resolve conflicts
No description provided.