Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 16, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Francois Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Virtio is special in many ways: > - it is a multi-vendor supported specification > - it is a multi-vendor opensource implementation in guest OSes > (Windows, Linux, FreeBSD...) > - it is a multi-vendor, opensource implementation in hypervisors > > > So, the great benefit of virtio is that with a SINGLE device driver in > a VM, applications are guaranteed to work in all situations (all > hypervisors, all backends). The real issue I see with AVP is that it > would bring uncertainty in virtual environments, breaking the "peace" > of mind that virtio brings. does the hypervisor supports this vnic? > does the virtual switch support the vnic? > Having a single multi-vendor supported specification and > implementations foster creativity, so I wouldn't be surprised to see > native virtio support from Smart NICs in a very near future! > > *** Bottom line, if there are good ideas in AVP (performance, > security...), I would rather push them to virtio. *** > > > Lastly, physical PMDs have been accepted based on implicit existence > of upstream drivers (valid for virtio and vmxnet3). So as a bare > minimum requirement, I would ask for Qemu, OVS and Linux upstream AVP > support. Is it the case? You are missing the point people will vote with there feet having competing solutions just forces a heathy eco system. Because the code is now open sourced then virtio can just take the improvement ideas and put it in their code. I do not believe you have convinced me that having another solution hurts the eco system. You can say we already have a driver for one nic why would we want another one. If someone produces a driver for a nic we already then I would accept it into dpdk. Maybe is slower or faster, less or more features, easier to maintain, but fills a gap like AVP then we must except that driver. At some point one will win or some will prefer one over the other. > > Cordially, > > François-Frédéric > > > On 16 March 2017 at 04:18, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odrisc...@intel.com> wrote: >>> From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jar...@6wind.com] >>> >>> Le 15/03/2017 à 11:55, Thomas Monjalon a écrit : >>>>> I'd suggest that this is a good topic for the next Tech Board >>> meeting. >>>> I agree Tim. >>>> CC'ing techboard to add this item to the agenda of the next meeting. >>> >>> Frankly, I disagree, it is missing some discussions on the list. >> >> I think the discussion on the mailing list is at an impasse and it won't be >> resolved there. I think the Tech Board needs to consider several issues: >> - What are the requirements for a new PMD to be accepted? For example, >> you're asking for performance data in this case, when this hasn't been a >> requirement for other PMDs. >> - Should there be different requirements for PMDs for virtual devices versus >> physical devices? >> - Based on these criteria, should the AVP PMD be accepted or not? > > > > -- > François-Frédéric Ozog | Director Linaro Networking Group > T: +33.67221.6485 > francois.o...@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog
