Dmitry Mishin wrote:
On Monday 04 December 2006 19:43, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 06:19:00PM +0300, Dmitry Mishin wrote:
On Sunday 03 December 2006 19:00, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Ok. Just a quick summary of where I see the discussion.
We all agree that L2 isolation is needed at some point.
As we all agreed on this, may be it is time to send patches
one-by-one? For the beggining, I propose to resend Cedric's
empty namespace patch as base for others - it is really empty,
but necessary in order to move further.
After this patch and the following net namespace unshare
patch will be accepted,
well, I have neither seen any performance tests showing
that the following is true:
- no change on network performance without the
space enabled
- no change on network performance on the host
with the network namespaces enabled
- no measureable overhead inside the network
namespace
- good scaleability for a larger number of network
namespaces
These questions are for complete L2 implementation, not for these 2 empty
patches. If you need some data relating to Andrey's implementation, I'll get
it. Which test do you accept?
tbench ?
With the following scenarii:
* intra host communication (one time with IP on eth and one time with
127.0.0.1)
* inter host communication
Each time:
- a single network namespace
- with 100 network namespace. 1 server communicating and 99 listening
but doing nothing.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
