Re: vale-ctl(-8), ifconfig(8), SIOCAIFADDR: Invalid argument [utilizing netmap(4) providing virtual switches+interfaces to BHyVe]
2016-10-15 11:42 GMT+02:00 Harry Schmalzbauer : > Bezüglich Vincenzo Maffione's Nachricht vom 15.10.2016 09:32 (localtime): > > 2016-10-14 15:38 GMT+02:00 Harry Schmalzbauer : > > … > >> I'm familar with epair(4), but not with tap(4). > >> I don't understand the man page for tap, perhaps I should read pty(4)… > >> But I guess I don't have to know the details of tap(4), since you > >> confirmed that it can be connected to VALE. > >> > > > > It's not necessary to understand the details. However, a TAP device is > > conceptually similar to the two ends of an epair, with the difference > that > > in the TAP a network interface (e.g. tap0) is conecptually "connected" > > back-to-back to a file descriptor. The file descriptor is written/read by > > the hypervisor (to inject/intercept packets to/from the network stack), > > while the tap0 interface can be attached to if_bridge. > > Hi Vincenzo, thanks for your explanation! > > > >> > >> So one could summarize: > >> VALE (as part of netmap(4)) can act as a if_bridge(4) replacement in > >> FreeBSD-10/11, keeping everything else involved untouched. > >> Please correct me if I'm wrong. > >> > > > > For simple cases yes. if_bridge may have features that are not supported > by > > netmap (i.e. configure ports as VLAN access ports). Moreover, if_bridge > has > > a interface (br0), whereas VALE bridges doesn't. > > Again, thank you for your time! (R)STP comes to my mind (which I don't > need any more). And I'm not sure if VALE really lacks that, but I guess > it wouldn't match VALEs philosophy/design at all… > Well, VALE is a programmable switch, meaning that you can plug in a custom forwarding function (which is just a C function). The default forwarding function implements an L2 learning bridge without STP, because it is thought to be used as the preferred hypervisor virtual switch, so no L2 connectivity loops, and the STP comes with an overhead. If you really wish to have VALE with STP, you could define your own custom forwarding function that implements it. > > … > >>> https://github.com/luigirizzo/netmap). Among the new features, there > is > >> a > >>> new solution for bhyve networking, which will let you attach your bhyve > >> VMs > >>> directly to a VALE switch, without paying additional overheads related > to > >>> TAPs, epairs, and vtnet emulation. You can find additional information, > >>> code and performance numbers here: > >>> https://wiki.freebsd.org/SummerOfCode2016/PtnetDriverAndDeviceModel. > >> > >> Thanks for that hint! > >> I guess it's about ptnetmap(4)? I read papers but haven't considered it > >> could be production-ready for FreeBSD in the near future. > >> It's extremely interesting and I'd love to be eraly adopter, but my > >> (ESXi) setups are currently doing well and I don't have spare time or > >> any business project to try out… :-( > >> > > > > Yes, it's ptnetmap. However, bhyve is going to have support for VALE > ports > > anyway (even without ptnetmap), as QEMU already does, so at least you > will > > be able to replace TAPs with VALE ports (while still using vtnet devices > > for the VM). > > Oic, I wasn't aware that there will be a VALE-vtnet direct path! That is > really great news :-) And a big achievment for guests preferring > "standard" drivers, ptnetmap could limit the guest OS choice I guess. > Yes ptnetmap is supported on QEMU and bhyve, and as a gues you can use only FreeBSD and Linux, at the moment. > > For now, I'm happy having been in touch with netmap(4) – at least with a > very little fraction of natmap – but I'll stay the legacy way utilizing > if_bridge(4) and see if there are still oddities and try to find some > time to track them down (involving LACP, VLANs, Jumbo-Frames and IPv6 – > that was the problematic constellation) > > Since I have extra PHYs, I can do PCIe-passthrough like before (with > ESXi) for some special guests. I'm looking forward to find out how this > works with bhyve! > > No idea, but also ptnetmap is able to do that: not only you can pass-through a VALE port, but also you can pass-through a physical interface. Cheers, Vincenzo > Best, > > -Harry > -- Vincenzo Maffione ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: vale-ctl(-8), ifconfig(8), SIOCAIFADDR: Invalid argument [utilizing netmap(4) providing virtual switches+interfaces to BHyVe]
Bezüglich Vincenzo Maffione's Nachricht vom 15.10.2016 09:32 (localtime): > 2016-10-14 15:38 GMT+02:00 Harry Schmalzbauer : … >> I'm familar with epair(4), but not with tap(4). >> I don't understand the man page for tap, perhaps I should read pty(4)… >> But I guess I don't have to know the details of tap(4), since you >> confirmed that it can be connected to VALE. >> > > It's not necessary to understand the details. However, a TAP device is > conceptually similar to the two ends of an epair, with the difference that > in the TAP a network interface (e.g. tap0) is conecptually "connected" > back-to-back to a file descriptor. The file descriptor is written/read by > the hypervisor (to inject/intercept packets to/from the network stack), > while the tap0 interface can be attached to if_bridge. Hi Vincenzo, thanks for your explanation! >> >> So one could summarize: >> VALE (as part of netmap(4)) can act as a if_bridge(4) replacement in >> FreeBSD-10/11, keeping everything else involved untouched. >> Please correct me if I'm wrong. >> > > For simple cases yes. if_bridge may have features that are not supported by > netmap (i.e. configure ports as VLAN access ports). Moreover, if_bridge has > a interface (br0), whereas VALE bridges doesn't. Again, thank you for your time! (R)STP comes to my mind (which I don't need any more). And I'm not sure if VALE really lacks that, but I guess it wouldn't match VALEs philosophy/design at all… … >>> https://github.com/luigirizzo/netmap). Among the new features, there is >> a >>> new solution for bhyve networking, which will let you attach your bhyve >> VMs >>> directly to a VALE switch, without paying additional overheads related to >>> TAPs, epairs, and vtnet emulation. You can find additional information, >>> code and performance numbers here: >>> https://wiki.freebsd.org/SummerOfCode2016/PtnetDriverAndDeviceModel. >> >> Thanks for that hint! >> I guess it's about ptnetmap(4)? I read papers but haven't considered it >> could be production-ready for FreeBSD in the near future. >> It's extremely interesting and I'd love to be eraly adopter, but my >> (ESXi) setups are currently doing well and I don't have spare time or >> any business project to try out… :-( >> > > Yes, it's ptnetmap. However, bhyve is going to have support for VALE ports > anyway (even without ptnetmap), as QEMU already does, so at least you will > be able to replace TAPs with VALE ports (while still using vtnet devices > for the VM). Oic, I wasn't aware that there will be a VALE-vtnet direct path! That is really great news :-) And a big achievment for guests preferring "standard" drivers, ptnetmap could limit the guest OS choice I guess. For now, I'm happy having been in touch with netmap(4) – at least with a very little fraction of natmap – but I'll stay the legacy way utilizing if_bridge(4) and see if there are still oddities and try to find some time to track them down (involving LACP, VLANs, Jumbo-Frames and IPv6 – that was the problematic constellation) Since I have extra PHYs, I can do PCIe-passthrough like before (with ESXi) for some special guests. I'm looking forward to find out how this works with bhyve! Best, -Harry ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: vale-ctl(-8), ifconfig(8), SIOCAIFADDR: Invalid argument [utilizing netmap(4) providing virtual switches+interfaces to BHyVe]
2016-10-14 15:38 GMT+02:00 Harry Schmalzbauer : > Bezüglich Vincenzo Maffione's Nachricht vom 14.10.2016 15:08 (localtime): > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for your feedback. > > > … > >> Accidentally I found out that 'vale-ctl -n testif0' creates a artificial > >> interface, which is reported by ifconfig(8): > >> testif0: flags=8801 metric 0 mtu 1500 > >> options=8 > >> ether 00:be:eb:8d:f8:00 > >> nd6 options=21 > >> > >> But I can't assign a IP address: 'ifconfig testif0 203.0.113.1/24' > >> ifconfig: ioctl (SIOCAIFADDR): Invalid argument > >> > >> I guess couldn't geti the picture of the netmap(4) world yet. > >> Probably, testif0 is available only in netmap(4) world, not in "host > >> world". > >> I'm assuming, because I found vale-ctl(-8)s "-h" switch. > >> > > > > Yes, those are the "persistent" VALE ports. They are a recent feature, > and > > probably you don't need to use them if you are going to play with Virtual > > Machines and jails (see below). > > Hello Vincenzo, > > thank you very much for your help!!! > > > … > >> Now my question: > >> > >> How can I plug a jail's or vmm's artificial interface to a VALE virtual > >> switch, bridging frames to real-world via physical interfaces? > >> (the latter part should work with vale-ctl -h vale0:em1, but what > >> interface to use for jail(8) vnet.interface and how to create/attach?) > >> > > > > If you use bhyve/vmm, you can attach the VM TAP interface to the VALE > > switch, as you would do for "em1". Regarding jails, I don't know exactly > > how networking works there, but I guess epair(4) interface (or similar) > are > > used. If this is the case, then you would have one end of the epair only > > visible in the jail, and the other end only visible in the "host"; then > you > > I'm familar with epair(4), but not with tap(4). > I don't understand the man page for tap, perhaps I should read pty(4)… > But I guess I don't have to know the details of tap(4), since you > confirmed that it can be connected to VALE. > It's not necessary to understand the details. However, a TAP device is conceptually similar to the two ends of an epair, with the difference that in the TAP a network interface (e.g. tap0) is conecptually "connected" back-to-back to a file descriptor. The file descriptor is written/read by the hypervisor (to inject/intercept packets to/from the network stack), while the tap0 interface can be attached to if_bridge. > > So one could summarize: > VALE (as part of netmap(4)) can act as a if_bridge(4) replacement in > FreeBSD-10/11, keeping everything else involved untouched. > Please correct me if I'm wrong. > For simple cases yes. if_bridge may have features that are not supported by netmap (i.e. configure ports as VLAN access ports). Moreover, if_bridge has a interface (br0), whereas VALE bridges doesn't. > > > > could attach the host end to a VALE switch again with "vale-ctl -a". > > Unfortunately, the performance you would get in any case is not great, > > because TAP and epair interface do not have netmap "native support". > > Moreover, when using bhyve, you have to pay the cost of the emulation of > > the vtnet device, since each packet passes through this device (other > than > > passing across netmap). > > I understand, thanks. > In fact, I expected that at first hand, but have had some oddities with > if_bridge(4) some years ago, so I thought I'd better try something new ;-) > Can I expect any resource savings over if_bridge(4)? I guess if so, the > ammount isn't relevant considering the whole bhyve scenarium. > I don't think you can expect resource savings in terms of memory, since netmap is trading off memory for performance, using pre-allocation rather than dynamic allocation (of each packet). I don't know what happens in terms of CPU saving, but using TAPs, epair and vtnet makes the system as a whole not really efficient (as if_bridge), so you may end up with nothing. > > > > However, consider the following: a consistent netmap update is going to > > happen in FreeBSD-CURRENT, in short. This is going to align the netmap > code > > which is now in FreeBSD to the code on the official github repository ( > > https://github.com/luigirizzo/netmap). Among the new features, there is > a > > new solution for bhyve networking, which will let you attach your bhyve > VMs > > directly to a VALE switch, without paying additional overheads related to > > TAPs, epairs, and vtnet emulation. You can find additional information, > > code and performance numbers here: > > https://wiki.freebsd.org/SummerOfCode2016/PtnetDriverAndDeviceModel. > > Thanks for that hint! > I guess it's about ptnetmap(4)? I read papers but haven't considered it > could be production-ready for FreeBSD in the near future. > It's extremely interesting and I'd love to be eraly adopter, but my > (ESXi) setups are currently doing well and I don't have spare time or > any business project to try out… :-( > Yes, it's ptnetmap. However, bhyve is going to have support for VALE p
Re: vale-ctl(-8), ifconfig(8), SIOCAIFADDR: Invalid argument [utilizing netmap(4) providing virtual switches+interfaces to BHyVe]
Bezüglich Vincenzo Maffione's Nachricht vom 14.10.2016 15:08 (localtime): > Hi, > > Thanks for your feedback. > … >> Accidentally I found out that 'vale-ctl -n testif0' creates a artificial >> interface, which is reported by ifconfig(8): >> testif0: flags=8801 metric 0 mtu 1500 >> options=8 >> ether 00:be:eb:8d:f8:00 >> nd6 options=21 >> >> But I can't assign a IP address: 'ifconfig testif0 203.0.113.1/24' >> ifconfig: ioctl (SIOCAIFADDR): Invalid argument >> >> I guess couldn't geti the picture of the netmap(4) world yet. >> Probably, testif0 is available only in netmap(4) world, not in "host >> world". >> I'm assuming, because I found vale-ctl(-8)s "-h" switch. >> > > Yes, those are the "persistent" VALE ports. They are a recent feature, and > probably you don't need to use them if you are going to play with Virtual > Machines and jails (see below). Hello Vincenzo, thank you very much for your help!!! … >> Now my question: >> >> How can I plug a jail's or vmm's artificial interface to a VALE virtual >> switch, bridging frames to real-world via physical interfaces? >> (the latter part should work with vale-ctl -h vale0:em1, but what >> interface to use for jail(8) vnet.interface and how to create/attach?) >> > > If you use bhyve/vmm, you can attach the VM TAP interface to the VALE > switch, as you would do for "em1". Regarding jails, I don't know exactly > how networking works there, but I guess epair(4) interface (or similar) are > used. If this is the case, then you would have one end of the epair only > visible in the jail, and the other end only visible in the "host"; then you I'm familar with epair(4), but not with tap(4). I don't understand the man page for tap, perhaps I should read pty(4)… But I guess I don't have to know the details of tap(4), since you confirmed that it can be connected to VALE. So one could summarize: VALE (as part of netmap(4)) can act as a if_bridge(4) replacement in FreeBSD-10/11, keeping everything else involved untouched. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > could attach the host end to a VALE switch again with "vale-ctl -a". > Unfortunately, the performance you would get in any case is not great, > because TAP and epair interface do not have netmap "native support". > Moreover, when using bhyve, you have to pay the cost of the emulation of > the vtnet device, since each packet passes through this device (other than > passing across netmap). I understand, thanks. In fact, I expected that at first hand, but have had some oddities with if_bridge(4) some years ago, so I thought I'd better try something new ;-) Can I expect any resource savings over if_bridge(4)? I guess if so, the ammount isn't relevant considering the whole bhyve scenarium. > However, consider the following: a consistent netmap update is going to > happen in FreeBSD-CURRENT, in short. This is going to align the netmap code > which is now in FreeBSD to the code on the official github repository ( > https://github.com/luigirizzo/netmap). Among the new features, there is a > new solution for bhyve networking, which will let you attach your bhyve VMs > directly to a VALE switch, without paying additional overheads related to > TAPs, epairs, and vtnet emulation. You can find additional information, > code and performance numbers here: > https://wiki.freebsd.org/SummerOfCode2016/PtnetDriverAndDeviceModel. Thanks for that hint! I guess it's about ptnetmap(4)? I read papers but haven't considered it could be production-ready for FreeBSD in the near future. It's extremely interesting and I'd love to be eraly adopter, but my (ESXi) setups are currently doing well and I don't have spare time or any business project to try out… :-( Is it likely that there will a MFC happen? Or will it be a exclusive 12.0 feature? If ptnetmap will be MFCd I'll definitely give it a try next summer and stay with 11.0 for my replacement machines for now. Otherwise I'm unsure… best, -Harry ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: vale-ctl(-8), ifconfig(8), SIOCAIFADDR: Invalid argument [utilizing netmap(4) providing virtual switches+interfaces to BHyVe]
Hi, Thanks for your feedback. 2016-10-14 11:00 GMT+02:00 Harry Schmalzbauer : > Dear all, > > I found great papers about netmap(4)s desigen and implementation > details, and I'm sure it's one other masterpeace of rizzo-quality :-) > Thanks to all participants for that great code! > > To be honest, I haven't read all of that, because I'm short in time and > my first mission is to see if FreeBSD 11 will replace some of my ESXi > machines. > > One key element seems netmap(4). > It's quiet hard to find userland documentation. > > So far, I've discovered that there are three essential tools waiting in > _usr/src/tools/tools/netmap_ to be compiled > (resulting in *./vale-ctl*, *./bridge*, *./pkt-gen*) > > While the latter is often referenced in netmap(4) documentation, it's > not of interest for me, because I'll be doing real-world performance > tests and I'm convinced that all the impressive numbers presented in the > netmap documentation are valid :-) > > So *vale-ctl(-8)* seems to be of interest (I'm using (-8) becaus > currently there is no man8 part (I guess that's the reason for these > tools not beeing integrated into base binaries)) > > Accidentally I found out that 'vale-ctl -n testif0' creates a artificial > interface, which is reported by ifconfig(8): > testif0: flags=8801 metric 0 mtu 1500 > options=8 > ether 00:be:eb:8d:f8:00 > nd6 options=21 > > But I can't assign a IP address: 'ifconfig testif0 203.0.113.1/24' > ifconfig: ioctl (SIOCAIFADDR): Invalid argument > > I guess couldn't geti the picture of the netmap(4) world yet. > Probably, testif0 is available only in netmap(4) world, not in "host > world". > I'm assuming, because I found vale-ctl(-8)s "-h" switch. > Yes, those are the "persistent" VALE ports. They are a recent feature, and probably you don't need to use them if you are going to play with Virtual Machines and jails (see below). > > So another very little peace I'm aware of the netmap(4) world, is how to > attach physical interfaces to virtual switches: > '/usr/src/tools/tools/netmap/vale-ctl -a vale0:em1' > Now vale-ctl(-8) shows: > bdg_ctl [149] bridge:0 port:0 vale0:em1 > > /* > To share my experience: One cannot use any other than vale[[:digit:]] > for defining the on-demand to be created virtual switch instance, so > e.g. "vale-ctl -a vale-test:em1" doesn't work, although found in > netmap(4) man page in FreeBSD-11: > »valeXXX:YYY (arbitrary XXX and YYY) > the file descriptor is bound to port YYY of a VALE switch called > XXX, both dynamically created if necessary. The string cannot > exceed IFNAMSIZ characters, and YYY cannot be the name of any > existing OS network interface« > > I was about to give up on netmap(4) investigations because I thought it > isn't production ready yet (in FreeBSD), since even andding the first > physical interface fails: '/usr/src/tools/tools/netmap/vale-ctl -a > vale-test:em1' > vale-test:em1: Invalid argument > > Probably accidentally I used vale[[:digit:]] instead and wondered whay > it suddenly works… > Correct, this seems to be an inconsistency between the manual and the implementation, we will fix the manual. > > To get back to vale-ctl(-8)s "-h" switch: > */ > > If I add a physical interface with -h instead of -a, the host's IP stack > doesn't get disconnected from the interface, so it's still usable by > host applications and vale-ctl(-8) lists one line more: > bdg_ctl [149] bridge:0 port:0 vale0:em1 > bdg_ctl [149] bridge:0 port:1 vale0:em1^ > So my assumption that netmap(4) lives decapsuled from the well known > FreeBSD IP world. > > > Now my question: > > How can I plug a jail's or vmm's artificial interface to a VALE virtual > switch, bridging frames to real-world via physical interfaces? > (the latter part should work with vale-ctl -h vale0:em1, but what > interface to use for jail(8) vnet.interface and how to create/attach?) > If you use bhyve/vmm, you can attach the VM TAP interface to the VALE switch, as you would do for "em1". Regarding jails, I don't know exactly how networking works there, but I guess epair(4) interface (or similar) are used. If this is the case, then you would have one end of the epair only visible in the jail, and the other end only visible in the "host"; then you could attach the host end to a VALE switch again with "vale-ctl -a". Unfortunately, the performance you would get in any case is not great, because TAP and epair interface do not have netmap "native support". Moreover, when using bhyve, you have to pay the cost of the emulation of the vtnet device, since each packet passes through this device (other than passing across netmap). However, consider the following: a consistent netmap update is going to happen in FreeBSD-CURRENT, in short. This is going to align the netmap code which is now in FreeBSD to the code on the official github repository ( https://github.com/luigirizzo/netmap). Among the new features, there is a new solution for bhyve networking, which will let you attach your bhyve
