On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Mintz, Yuval wrote:
>> Sending RFC to get feedback for the following ethtool proposal:
>>
>> In some cases such as virtual machines and multi functions (SR-IOV), the
>> actual
>> bandwidth exposed for each machine is not accurately shown in ethtool.
>> Currently et
And besides, one can argue that in the SR-IOV scenario the VF has no business
knowing the physical port speed.
Good point, but there are more use-cases we should consider.
For example, when using Multi-Host/Flex-10/Multi-PF each PF should
be able to query both physical port speed and actual spe
On 02/11/2016 17:50, Mintz, Yuval wrote:
>> Sending RFC to get feedback for the following ethtool proposal:
>>
>> In some cases such as virtual machines and multi functions (SR-IOV), the
>> actual
>> bandwidth exposed for each machine is not accurately shown in ethtool.
>> Currently ethtool show
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Gal Pressman wrote:
> In some cases such as virtual machines and multi functions (SR-IOV), the
> actual
> bandwidth exposed for each machine is not accurately shown in ethtool.
You mean that if you rate-limit a VF from the host they will be able
to actually query
> Sending RFC to get feedback for the following ethtool proposal:
>
> In some cases such as virtual machines and multi functions (SR-IOV), the
> actual
> bandwidth exposed for each machine is not accurately shown in ethtool.
> Currently ethtool shows only physical port link speed.
> In our case w
Sending RFC to get feedback for the following ethtool proposal:
In some cases such as virtual machines and multi functions (SR-IOV), the actual
bandwidth exposed for each machine is not accurately shown in ethtool.
Currently ethtool shows only physical port link speed.
In our case we would like to
