Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view

[Cedric Le Goater]

Hi !

Eric W. Biederman wrote:

[ ... ]

> So just to sink one additional nail in the coffin of the silly
> guest to guest communication issue.  For any two guests where
> fast communication between them is really important I can run
> an additional interface pair that requires no routing or bridging.
> Given that the implementation of the tunnel device is essentially
> the same as the loopback interface and that I make only one
> trip through the network stack there will be no performance overhead.
> Similarly for any critical guest communication to the outside world
> I can give the guest a real network adapter.
> 
> That said I don't think those things will be necessary and that if
> they are it is an optimization opportunity to make various bits
> of the network stack faster.

just one comment on the 'guest to guest communication' topic :

guest to guest communication is an important factor in consolidation
scenarios, where containers are packed on one server. This for maintenance
issues or priority issues on a HPC cluster for example. This case of
container migration is problably the most interesting and the performance
should be more than acceptable. May be not a top priority for the moment.


thanks,

C.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/