On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Lori Jakab <loja...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/7/14 8:50 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Lori Jakab <loja...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/6/14 4:06 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Have you tried running GSO traffic over lisp using OVS compat GSO code >>>>>>>>> and upstream GSO code? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I haven't and I'm not sure what's the right way to do that. I do my >>>>>>>> testing >>>>>>>> between to VMs. I see with ethtool that GSO is enabled on the virtual >>>>>>>> NICs >>>>>>>> in the VMs, and on the br0 interface after the switch is created. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is fine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To test that I can enable/disable GSO I download a 30MB file over HTTP >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> look in Wireshark for packets satisfying "ip.len > 1500". With TSO >>>>>>>> enabled, >>>>>>>> I do get such packets. Not with GSO though. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you point me to the right way to test this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> netperf test will to the trick, But you need to test with different >>>>>>> kernel versions. >>>>>>> - kernel < 3.10 where ovs configure could not find symbol >>>>>>> "gre_handle_offloads" >>>>>>> - kernel 3.17 which has all the offload used by OVS. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I have one VM with Fedora 18 and kernel 3.7.2-201.fc18.x86_64, and the >>>>>> other >>>>>> with Fedora 19 and kernel 3.14.19-100.fc19.x86_64. I tried netperf in >>>>>> both >>>>>> directions. In both cases the OVS + LISP performance vs. direct link >>>>>> performace was one order of magnitude worse. Is that to be expected? Is >>>>>> this a good enough test for GSO traffic? If yes, I will send out v7. >>>>>> >>>>> Can you give me numbers the you are seeing? One way to test GSO is to >>>>> look for any dropped packet at source, tcpdump can help with that. You >>>>> also need to set physical MTU large enough for encapsulated packet. >>>> >>>> >>>> I found packet loss unrelated to GSO, I need to add layer 3 support to >>>> ovs_packet_cmd_execute() as well. I'll get back to you after I finish this >>>> and I'm able to do the tests. >>>> >>> >>> ok. >>> >>> What are you plans regarding L3 GRE support? We need it to upstream this >>> work. >> >> I assume that you mean because LISP isn't upstream yet? I think we >> need to try to push it again so that we can resolve the differences >> from upstream. >> > Yes, I was referring to LISP upstreaming. I am not sure about plans. > Are we still trying to add support for LISP network device?
I think maybe an OVS-only implementation similar to Geneve might be the best path for now. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
