I added my comments inlined. > -----Mesaj original----- > De la: Nithin Raju [mailto:nit...@vmware.com] > Trimis: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 9:05 AM > Către: Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> > Cc: Alin Serdean <aserd...@cloudbasesolutions.com>; Ben Pfaff > <b...@nicira.com>; dev@openvswitch.org > Subiect: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v4] datapath-windows: Enable checksum > offloads in STT > > hi Jesse, > We are getting the Hyper-V solution to a state with the following goals: > - Work “out of the box” ie. no need to make special settings such as disabling > checksum offload, TSO, etc. > - Reasonably stable > > Most of the patches we have checked in so far into 2.4 are geared towards > these two goals. Once all of the required changes go in, and we are > reasonably confident about the stability, we can hopefully make an > announcement about Hyper-V support. [Alin Gabriel Serdean: ] +1 > > The 64-bit support is geared towards support Windows Nano which IIRC, > supports only 64-bit apps (Alin, correct me if I’m wrong). [Alin Gabriel Serdean: ] 64-bit is targeted mostly for NanoServer and to some extent it increases performance. It is important that we have a stable branch that supports NanoServers especially for testing purposes because of the low disk requirements it offers. (http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2015/04/08/microsoft-announces-nano-server-for-modern-apps-and-cloud.aspx) > > STT and VXLAN checksumming patches are required to make sure that we > don’t have to disable them at the VIF to make TCP/Ping traffic work. [Alin Gabriel Serdean: ] I concur this is targeted directly for the users and it will ease up a lot of configuration headaches when deploying. > > The TCP flags patch is probably optional for 2.4, but maybe Alin has a good > reason for it. [Alin Gabriel Serdean: ] This is a full flat feature. I just thought it would be nice to have it on both branches. > > I agree that we should not destabilize 2.4 branch and we’ll take precautions > for it. [Alin Gabriel Serdean: ] +1 > > Pls. let us know if you have concerns. > > thanks, > -- Nithin > > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 7:11 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Nithin Raju <nit...@vmware.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Sairam and Nithin, I applied this to master. > >> > >> Ben, > >> Can you pls. apply this to 2.4 as well? > > > > I'm somewhat concerned about the number and size of Windows patches > > that are targeted at 2.4 (it seems a lot went out today in > > particular). Besides being large, many of them don't seem to meet the > > criteria that I would normally expect for a backport. For example, > > some look like features (64 bit support, TCP flags) while others > > appear to be fixes for bugs so fundamental to the operation of things > > that it seems unlikely that that part of the code can be deployed as > > it currently exists (checksums in STT, VXLAN). > > > > Can you please explain the rationale?
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
