On 09/22/14 at 08:10am, Tom Herbert wrote: > Thomas, can you (or someone else) quantify what the host case is. I > suppose there may be merit in using a switch on NIC for kernel bypass > scenarios, but I'm still having a hard time understanding how this > could be integrated into the host stack with benefits that outweigh
Personally my primary interest is on lxc and vm based workloads w/ end to end encryption, encap, distributed L3 and NAT, and policy enforcement including service graphs which imply both east-west and north-south traffic patterns on a host. The usual I guess ;-) > complexity. The history of stateful offloads in NICs is not great, and > encapsulation (stuffing a few bytes of header into a packet) is in > itself not nearly an expensive enough operation to warrant offloading No argument here. The direct benchmark comparisons I've measured showed only around 2% improvement. What makes stateful offload interesting to me is that the final desintation of a packet is known at RX and can be redirected to a queue or VF. This allows to build packet batches on shared pages while preserving the securiy model. Will the gains outweigh complexity? I hope so but I don't know for sure. If you have insights, let me know. What I know for sure is that I don't want to rely on a kernel bypass for the above. > to the NIC. Personally, I wish if NIC vendors are going to focus on > stateful offload I rather see it be for encryption which I believe > currently does warrant offload at 40G and higher speeds. Agreed. I would like to be see a focus on both. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
