On Thursday 19 February 2009, Rusty Russell wrote: > Not quite: I think PCI passthrough IMHO is the *wrong* way to do it: > it makes migrate complicated (if not impossible), and requires > emulation or the same NIC on the destination host. > > This would be the *host* seeing the virtual functions as multiple > NICs, then the ability to attach a given NIC directly to a process.
I guess what you mean then is what Intel calls VMDq, not SR-IOV. Eddie has some slides about this at http://docs.huihoo.com/kvm/kvmforum2008/kdf2008_7.pdf . The latest network cards support both operation modes, and it appears to me that there is a place for both. VMDq gives you the best performance without limiting flexibility, while SR-IOV performance in theory can be even better, but sacrificing a lot of flexibility and potentially local (guest-to-gest) performance. AFAICT, any card that supports SR-IOV should also allow a VMDq like model, as you describe. Arnd <>< -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
