netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 0/2] vhost: a kernel-level virtio server

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090812163737.GA29903@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:37:37 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hpa@...or.com,
	Patrick Mullaney <pmullaney@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/2] vhost: a kernel-level virtio server

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:13:43PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 09:51:45AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>> If I understand it correctly, you can at least connect a veth pair
> >>>>> to a bridge, right? Something like
> >>>>>
> >>>>>            veth0 - veth1 - vhost - guest 1 
> >>>>> eth0 - br0-|
> >>>>>            veth2 - veth3 - vhost - guest 2
> >>>>>            
> >>>> Heh, you don't need a bridge in this picture:
> >>>>
> >>>> guest 1 - vhost - veth0 - veth1 - vhost guest 2
> >>> Sure, but the setup I described is the one that I would expect
> >>> to see in practice because it gives you external connectivity.
> >>>
> >>> Measuring two guests communicating over a veth pair is
> >>> interesting for finding the bottlenecks, but of little
> >>> practical relevance.
> >>>
> >>> 	Arnd <><
> >> Yeah, this would be the config I would be interested in.
> > 
> > Hmm, this wouldn't be the config to use for the benchmark though: there
> > are just too many variables.  If you want both guest to guest and guest
> > to host, create 2 nics in the guest.
> > 
> > Here's one way to do this:
> > 
> > 	-net nic,model=virtio,vlan=0 -net user,vlan=0
> > 	-net nic,vlan=1,model=virtio,vhost=veth0
> > 	-redir tcp:8022::22
> > 
> > 	-net nic,model=virtio,vlan=0 -net user,vlan=0
> > 	 -net nic,vlan=1,model=virtio,vhost=veth1
> > 	-redir tcp:8023::22
> > 
> > In guests, for simplicity, configure eth1 and eth0
> > to use separate subnets.
> 
> I can try to do a few variations, but what I am interested is in
> performance in a real-world L2 configuration.  This would generally mean
>  all hosts (virtual or physical) in the same L2 domain.
> 
> If I get a chance, though, I will try to also wire them up in isolation
> as another data point.
> 
> Regards,
> -Greg
> 
> 

Or patch macvlan to support guest to guest:
http://markmail.org/message/sjy74g57qsvdo2wh
That patch needs to be updated to support guest to guest multiast,
but it seems functional enough for your purposes.

-- 
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html