Darrell Ball <[email protected]> writes: > On 5/26/17, 7:12 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Stephen > Finucane" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> > wrote: > > Apparently dpdkvhostuser interfaces are inferior to dpdkvhostuserclient. > Explain why. > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <[email protected]> > Cc: Ciara Loftus <[email protected]> > Cc: Kevin Traynor <[email protected]> > --- > I'd like to note what happens to traffic when OVS or a VM is restarted > for both port types. If someone knows the answer to this, please feel > free to take ownership of that patch/ask me for a v2. > --- > Documentation/topics/dpdk/vhost-user.rst | 8 ++++++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/topics/dpdk/vhost-user.rst > b/Documentation/topics/dpdk/vhost-user.rst > index ba22684..2e2396b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/topics/dpdk/vhost-user.rst > +++ b/Documentation/topics/dpdk/vhost-user.rst > @@ -54,8 +54,12 @@ vHost User sockets, and the client connects to the > server. Depending on which > port type you use, ``dpdkvhostuser`` or ``dpdkvhostuserclient``, a > different > configuration of the client-server model is used. > > -For vhost-user ports, Open vSwitch acts as the server and QEMU the > client. For > -vhost-user-client ports, Open vSwitch acts as the client and QEMU the > server. > +For vhost-user ports, Open vSwitch acts as the server and QEMU the > client. This > +means if OVS dies, all VMs **must** be restarted. On the other hand, for > +vhost-user-client ports, OVS acts as the client and QEMU the server. > This means > +OVS can die and be restarted without issue, > > > “ and it is also possible to restart > +an instance itself.” > > Restart a VM instance ?; if so, it seems already implied. > Or OVS instance ? > > For this reason, vhost-user-client ports are the preferred > +type for most use cases. > > At one point, because I am helping to support OVS-DPDK, I had both > vhostuser and vhostuserclient ports configured on our performance servers, > because I thought I should have both, so I could support both. Then, I > realized I > just did not want to use vhostuser ports, due to the permissions/security > issues, noticed on OVS restart. > > So, what are the use cases (besides self-flagellation) for using vhostuser > ports in lieu of > vhostuserclient ports ?
At the time they were introduced, deployed versions of qemu couldn't support the vhostuserclient mode. I'm less sure what the state of that world looks like today. I know that RHEL 7.3 doesn't ship a QEMU that supports client-mode ports. > If the answer is none, can we deprecate them in OVS 2.8 (update NEWS etc) and > remove them in OVS 2.9 ? I'm all for deprecating them as long as the major vendors (RH, Debian, SUSE) support the newer QEMU. 2.9 may be too aggressive for removal - perhaps the release after? Just to be sure there is a path to migration for existing users. Maybe I'm off my rocker, though. > .. _dpdk-vhost-user: > > -- > 2.9.4 > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.openvswitch.org_mailman_listinfo_ovs-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=BVhFA09CGX7JQ5Ih-uZnsw&m=hjj87k1Hqw8FflJQ7cRgAFD8O4-t89ARPxN1qb1XrZs&s=LCybNvXe55JKD-bmxLDouYfRUdKhk7qHQFv2Wsk7UsA&e= > > > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
