On 2015-05-28 17:45, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 03:36:30PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote: >> Are we on the same page with that? Or is there disagreement there? > As someone working on small embedded level boxes without lots of cpu > cores, the separate process per VRF is not desirable at all. One process > with one config interface running in multiple namespaces is ideal for us > (and in fact what we are currently working on doing).
Amen to that, we¹ need the exact same thing. Wasting RAM and CPU on multiple processes is not at all desirable for us that target limited embedded systems. To see Quagga moving towards using network namespaces and a single daemon for this is awesome! > If someone wants to support multiple processes as well, that's fine, > as long as it works with a single process too for those that are not > interested in the multi core scalability and associated overhead of > multiple processes. Agreed. I'm just very happy to see so much activity lately, especially since we've now got both David and Paul actively working on Quagga again! Despite differences and minor hiccups, this is turning out to be quite a remarkable little community! Keep up the awesome work guys! <3 Regards /Joachim ¹) Westermo _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
