Re: Would there be interest in virtualization of the ixgbe driver?

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Brandon Gooch wrote: > 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 y

Re: Would there be interest in virtualization of the ixgbe driver?

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 Goo

Re: Would there be interest in virtualization of the ixgbe driver?

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Ryan Stone 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

Re: Would there be interest in virtualization of the ixgbe driver?

While it seems interesting in theory, from what Ryan has told me it would require massive change to the code base, which I do not think is worthwhile without significant demand. This ability could be provided with SRIOV host support, which I would rather see. I'm still willing to look at changes

Re: if_bridge VIMAGE patch

On 1/13/2011 5:49 PM, Marko Zec wrote: On Thursday 13 January 2011 13:42:30 Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: Hi, Please, review the attached patch. It is against yesterday's HEAD and it virtualizes if_bridge. You can use the bridgetest script to create quickly a topology with redundant links to test S

Re: if_bridge VIMAGE patch

On Thursday 13 January 2011 13:42:30 Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: > Hi, > > Please, review the attached patch. It is against yesterday's HEAD > and it virtualizes if_bridge. > > You can use the bridgetest script to create quickly a topology > with redundant links to test STP. Looks good to me, though

Re: if_bridge VIMAGE patch

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Julian Elischer wrote: On 1/13/11 4:42 AM, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: Hi, Please, review the attached patch. It is against yesterday's HEAD and it virtualizes if_bridge. without examining every character, it looks ok. The script should go in /usr/share/examples/netgraph B

Re: if_bridge VIMAGE patch

On 1/13/2011 5:33 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: The script should go in /usr/share/examples/netgraph It's not that well written, I just wrote it to test this complex topology it generates. But, If you find the script useful, feel free to commit it. Thanks for the prompt reply, Nikos _

Re: Would there be interest in virtualization of the ixgbe driver?

On 1/5/2011 12:50 AM, Ryan Stone wrote: 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 ix

Re: if_bridge VIMAGE patch

On 1/13/11 4:42 AM, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: Hi, Please, review the attached patch. It is against yesterday's HEAD and it virtualizes if_bridge. without examining every character, it looks ok. The script should go in /usr/share/examples/netgraph Bjoern/Marko, see any problems? You can

if_bridge VIMAGE patch

Hi, Please, review the attached patch. It is against yesterday's HEAD and it virtualizes if_bridge. You can use the bridgetest script to create quickly a topology with redundant links to test STP. Thanks, Nikos #!/bin/sh __macaddress__() ( openssl rand 5 | od -tx1 | sed '1s/000/0/