Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:14:28 +0200 | From | Cedric Le Goater <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view |
| |
Hi !
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
[ ... ]
> So just to sink one additional nail in the coffin of the silly > guest to guest communication issue. For any two guests where > fast communication between them is really important I can run > an additional interface pair that requires no routing or bridging. > Given that the implementation of the tunnel device is essentially > the same as the loopback interface and that I make only one > trip through the network stack there will be no performance overhead. > Similarly for any critical guest communication to the outside world > I can give the guest a real network adapter. > > That said I don't think those things will be necessary and that if > they are it is an optimization opportunity to make various bits > of the network stack faster.
just one comment on the 'guest to guest communication' topic :
guest to guest communication is an important factor in consolidation scenarios, where containers are packed on one server. This for maintenance issues or priority issues on a HPC cluster for example. This case of container migration is problably the most interesting and the performance should be more than acceptable. May be not a top priority for the moment.
thanks,
C. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |