Hi All, I have a few small questions about OvS and how it has evolved since the NSDI paper (http://www.openvswitch.org/support/papers/nsdi2015.pdf) The paper discusses how the reactive method of flow addition was not scalable, hence the cache was populated with mega-flows. The mega-flow is made up of multiple tables where the match schema for each table differs. A flow may only be found in a single mega-flow table. There is a section that talks about the initiation of the mega-flow match through a micro-flow match. A direct mega flow lookup was expensive so the mega-flow is put in cache after microflow lookup because this scheme was more performant. Direct mega-flow lookup needed multiple hashes that simultaneously match all the different hash tables. The question I have here is - if the cost of directly matching a mega-flow were low, would there be a reason to even take the alternate path? What is the typical number of hashes typically in use? Secondly, my understanding from the paper is that the mega-flow and microflow have the exact same actions in terms of tunnel and NAT management. This gets a little confusing in the context of connection tracking. Since the connections are being tracked on a micro-flow basis, do folks see that micro and mega-flows will exist in different tables simultaneously, where mega-flow rules have tunneling actions and micro-flow rules have connection tracking?
Thanks, Manasi _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
