On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:16 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:52:46AM -0700, xiangxia.m....@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m....@gmail.com> >> >> The bond of openvswitch has not good performance. > > I'd really say that the best solution to that is to improve the > performance, rather than piling on another bonding layer. Yes, i agree that. I think we can also, support an option for users to use the native dpdk-bond device. Because I have used the dpdk-bond in our production environment. I use it as a interface but not a port.
These patches are RFC and just an option for users, not to replace ovs-bond function. If you agree that, I can do works for this. If not, I will drop these patches. As Ilya said, we can use virtual device args to create a dpdk-bond, these patches may make it easy to modify the mode and policy without destroy devices. And thanks Jan. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev