Anthony Liguori wrote: > > I think we need to decide what we want to target in terms of upper > limits. > > With a bridge or two, we can probably easily do 128. > > If we really want to push things, I think we should do a PCI based > virtio controller. I doubt a large number of PCI devices is ever > going to perform very well b/c of interrupt sharing and some of the > assumptions in virtio_pci. > > If we implement a controller, we can use a single interrupt, but > multiplex multiple notifications on that single interrupt. We can > also be more aggressive about using shared memory instead of PCI > config space which would reduce the overall number of exits. > > We could easily support a very large number of devices this way. But > again, what do we want to target for now?
I think that for networking we should keep things as is. I don't see anybody using 100 virtual NICs. For mass storage, we should follow the SCSI model with a single device serving multiple disks, similar to what you suggest. Not sure if the device should have a single queue or one queue per disk. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
