From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 14E816B005C for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:39:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:37:37 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/2] vhost: a kernel-level virtio server Message-ID: <20090812163737.GA29903@redhat.com> References: <20090811212743.GA26309@redhat.com> <200908121452.01802.arnd@arndb.de> <20090812130612.GC29200@redhat.com> <200908121540.44928.arnd@arndb.de> <4A82C8F1.4030703@gmail.com> <20090812140224.GA29345@redhat.com> <4A82EA37.3010902@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A82EA37.3010902@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Gregory Haskins Cc: Arnd Bergmann , netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , hpa@zytor.com, Patrick Mullaney List-ID: 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org