On 4/10/2020 9:09 AM, Lazuardi Nasution wrote:
Hi Greg, Tonghao,
In case I use option No.2, how to make encapsulated traffic inside a VLAN?
Should I do following steps?
* Create representor ports of VFs
* Make bonding of created VFs (the VF are from member bonded PFs)
* Create VLAN of bonded VFs
* Give IP for created VLAN
* Use created IP for ovn-encap-ip (this case is for OVN with OVS-DPDK)
Hi Lazuardi,
That sounds generally OK but keep in mind that if you have a bond
between two VFs and the VFs are from the same PF then they might both
suffer a failure at the same time if the underlying PF experiences a
failure. If you're only concerned about bonding for performance reasons
and don't mind if both ports go down at the same time then that's OK,
but I wanted to point it out. For fail over bonding two VFs from the
same PF is not useful.
From there, I'll say that I don't have any experience at all lately
with DPDK - my work is more on the kernel datapath, so I'm going to
defer to other experts on that part of your question.
Best of luck,
- Greg
Best regards,
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:30 AM Tonghao Zhang <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:07 PM Lazuardi Nasution
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Any concern I should know if I choose to use option No. 1? Something
like what Tonghao tell on previous e-mail on this thread?
maybe different solution, about isolated mode, please see:
https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html#flow-isolated-mode
Best regards,
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 02:24 Gregory Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/8/2020 8:32 AM, Lazuardi Nasution wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for your suggestion. But anyway, why don't you suggest No.
1?
In term of using suggested No. 2 with MLX5 PMD, is representor port
still
needed? I assume that there is no need to communicate between PF and
VF.
Let's say, PF is used for Ceph storage and other kernel based
(non-DPDK)
services, VF is used for OVS-DPDK.
Hi Lazuardi,
the configuration matrix is dependent on your usage model. Option No. 1
will work fine I'm sure and if it fits your needs then go with it.
- Greg
Best regards,
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 22:24 Gregory Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/8/2020 5:50 AM, Lazuardi Nasution wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking for best practice or experience on running OVS-DPDK and
other
kernel based applications with the same interface especially with
MLX5
PMD.
As long as I know, one of both must use VF and the other use PF
since kernel and DPDK cannot bind to same interface. Which one of
following
is possible and better?
1. OVS-DPDK bind to PF and kernel bind to VF
2. OVS-DPDK bind to VF and kernel bind to PF
If it is better (or the only possible) to use No. 2, what version
of OVS
and DPDK support VF binding? Should I bind to kernel created VF
directly
or
it's representor?
If you use option 2 then the Linux kernel has PCI-e primitives that
support the allocation of the VF resources, including number of VFs,
their permissions and settings of any offload capabilities that the
VFs
might have.
- Greg
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
--
Best regards, Tonghao
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
