> This is dependent on the hypervisor and not being restricted by OVS. > However, the direct benefits of vlan offloading are very minimal and > are really only useful in relation to enabling other offloads.
In my testbed results are not minimal (untagged by OVS have ~2 times more bandwith than untagged by VM) All interfaces have MTU=9000 1)untagged by VM interface (in OVS like "trunks: [1002]") #atop from VM NET | transport | tcpi 22733 | tcpo 80191 | udpi 0 | udpo 4 | NET | eth0 ---- | pcki 22736 | pcko 80243 | si 12 Mbps | so 5777 Mbps | NET | vlan100 ---- | pcki 22738 | pcko 80245 | si 9495 Kbps | so 5775 Mbps | #atop from Dom0 CPU | sys 57% | irq 39% cpu | sys 58% | irq 41% .. NET | vif1.0 ---- | pcki 227727 | pcko 797502 | si 10 Mbps | so 5743 Mbps NET | vif2.0 ---- | pcki 797748 | pcko 227717 | si 5736 Mbps | so 12 Mbps 2) untagged by OVS interface (in OVS like "tag: 1002") #atop from VM - untagged by OVS interface NET | transport | tcpi 8495 | tcpo 163131 | udpi 0 | udpo 0 NET | eth1 ---- | pcki 8495 | pcko 24718 | si 4485 Kbps | so 11 Gbps #atop from Dom0 CPU | sys 96% | irq 4% cpu | sys 96% | irq 4% .. NET | vif1.1 ---- | pcki 75974 | pcko 247608 | si 3160 Kbps | so 11 Gbps NET | vif2.1 ---- | pcki 247616 | pcko 75971 | si 11 Gbps | so 4011 Kbps As you can see second variant have full netback sys load in DOM0. Second have high number of irq and high numbers of pcki/pcko. Is this behavior correct? -- Best regards, Eugene Istomin On Friday, May 31, 2013 02:57:27 PM Jesse Gross wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Eugene Istomin <e.isto...@edss.ee> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > > > > i'm trying to understand Xen/OVS - VLAN offloading > > > > > > > > > > > > In my testbed: > > > > > > > > #ovs-vsctl show > > > > Bridge vlannet > > > > Port "vif5.0" > > > > tag: 1002 > > > > Interface "vif5.0" > > > > Port vlannet-bond > > > > Interface "vlannet2" > > > > Interface "vlannet1" > > > > Port vlannet > > > > Interface vlannet > > > > type: internal > > > > Port "vif3.0" > > > > tag: 1002 > > > > Interface "vif3.0" > > > > ovs_version: "1.10.0" > > > > > > > > 1) Xen Dom0 HW interface -> > > > > ethtool -k vlannet1 > > > > > > > > .. > > > > rx-vlan-offload: on > > > > tx-vlan-offload: on > > > > rx-vlan-filter: on [fixed] > > > > .. > > > > > > > > 2) OVS system interface -> > > > > ethtool -k ovs-system > > > > > > > > .. > > > > rx-vlan-offload: off [fixed] > > > > tx-vlan-offload: on > > > > rx-vlan-filter: off [fixed] > > > > .. > > > > > > > > 3) DomU netback interface -> > > > > ethtool -k ovs-system > > > > > > > > .. > > > > rx-vlan-offload: off [fixed] > > > > tx-vlan-offload: off [fixed] > > > > rx-vlan-filter: off [fixed] > > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > > As i see, VLAN offloading is partially implemented in OVS and didn't > > implemented in Xen means VLAN tagged traffic inside VM will make > > additional > > latency. > > > > > > > > Can anyone have info about OVS->VM VLAN offloading configuration? > > This is dependent on the hypervisor and not being restricted by OVS. > However, the direct benefits of vlan offloading are very minimal and > are really only useful in relation to enabling other offloads. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
