Doesn't matter, I have a coworker who handles Solaris, he can probably give me some info :) SRIOV allows you to partition the device at the PCI level and then you can 'assign' to a virtual guest or whatever, its still the most desireable to me.
Jack On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Brandon Gooch <jamesbrandongo...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Ryan Stone <ryst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > At $WORK I've implemented an extension of the ixgbe driver that > > provides multiple virtualized ixgbe interfaces. The implementation > > uses the 8259[89]'s virtualization features, so the rx and tx paths of > > the virtual interfaces are completely independent. From the > > perspective of everything above the ixgbe driver, it's as if there are > > multiple physical interfaces present. > > > > The use-case for the feature at $WORK is very specific to our > > architecture, but I can imagine that having hardware-based virtual > > interfaces could be useful with jails, vnet or when using FreeBSD as > > the host OS for something like VirtualBox. I'm really not very > > familiar with what people do or want to do with virtualization on > > FreeBSD, so I don't have any kind of idea as to whether this feature > > could be useful to the community. > > > > Currently the code is not in a state that could be submitted to jfv@ > > for consideration: I disabled certain features like RSS because I > > didn't need them in my implementation, and interfaces can only be > > created at boot(via tunable). Before I start working on cleaning it > > up, I want to know if people think that such a feature would be > > worthwhile or useful to them. > > > > The way that I envision this working is that you'd run something like > > "ifconfig vix0 create parent ix1" to create a new virtual interface > > sharing the same physical interface as ix1. From that point on, vix0 > > would be a completely different interface from ix1, with its own MAC, > > vlan table, IPs, etc. > > It would be nice to split up the hardware for use with vnet jails. The > virtualization technique you are describing -- it sounds similar to > how network device virtualization is done in the Solaris "Project > Crossbow" implementation. Can you comment on this? > > In other words, would we have the ability to have a vnet jail tied to > specific hardware resources (Rx/Tx rings with their own DMA channels > and interrupts, etc...). > > I'm sorry, I don't have a link to the "Project Crossbow" features to > which I'm referring. > > -Brandon > _______________________________________________ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
