Avi Kivity wrote: > 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.
My latest thought it to do a virtio-based virtio controller. We could avoid creating one in QEMU unless we detect an abnormally large number of disks or something. Regards, Anthony Liguori ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
