On Wednesday 16 December 2009, Leonid Grossman wrote:
3. Doing the bridging in the NIC using macvlan in passthrough
mode. This lowers the CPU utilization further compared to 2,
at the expense of limiting throughput by the performance of
the PCIe interconnect to the adapter. Whether or
-Original Message-
From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:a...@arndb.de]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:16 AM
To: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Leonid Grossman; qemu-de...@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: Guest bridge setup variations
On Wednesday 16 December 2009, Leonid
-Original Message-
From: virtualization-boun...@lists.linux-foundation.org
[mailto:virtualization-boun...@lists.linux-foundation.org] On Behalf
Of
Arnd Bergmann
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 8:08 AM
To: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Cc: qemu-de...@nongnu.org
Subject: Guest bridge setup variations
As promised, here is my small writeup on which setups I feel
are important in the long run for server-type guests. This
does not cover -net user, which is really for desktop kinds
of applications where you do not want to connect into the
guest from
On Thursday 10 December 2009, Fischer, Anna wrote:
3. Doing the bridging in the NIC using macvlan in passthrough
mode. This lowers the CPU utilization further compared to 2,
at the expense of limiting throughput by the performance of
the PCIe interconnect to the adapter. Whether or not
On 10.12.2009, at 15:18, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 10 December 2009, Fischer, Anna wrote:
3. Doing the bridging in the NIC using macvlan in passthrough
mode. This lowers the CPU utilization further compared to 2,
at the expense of limiting throughput by the performance of
the PCIe
On Thursday 10 December 2009 19:14:28 Alexander Graf wrote:
This is something I also have been thinking about, but it is not what
I was referring to above. I think it would be good to keep the three
cases (macvlan, VMDq, SR-IOV) as similar as possible from the user
perspective, so using
On 10.12.2009, at 21:20, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 10 December 2009 19:14:28 Alexander Graf wrote:
This is something I also have been thinking about, but it is not what
I was referring to above. I think it would be good to keep the three
cases (macvlan, VMDq, SR-IOV) as similar as
