Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
In testing I have been unable to saturate a 10g link using a single VM. Even
with multiple streams,
the best I have been able to do (using virtio and vhost_net is about 7.8g.
Can you share details about your hardware and vSwitch config (possibly off list
if that isn't
On Jan 30, 2014, at 6:26 AM, CARVER, PAUL pc2...@att.com wrote:
Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
In testing I have been unable to saturate a 10g link using a single VM. Even
with multiple streams,
the best I have been able to do (using virtio and vhost_net is about 7.8g.
Can you share
On Jan 24, 2014, at 6:33 AM, CARVER, PAUL pc2...@att.com wrote:
I agree that I’d like to see a set of use cases for this. This is the second
time in as many days that I’ve heard about a desire to have such a thing but
I still don’t think I understand any use cases adequately.
In the
On 25 January 2014 03:33, CARVER, PAUL pc2...@att.com wrote:
I agree that I'd like to see a set of use cases for this. This is the second
time in as many days that I've heard about a desire to have such a thing but
I still don't think I understand any use cases adequately.
In the physical
Lingxian Kong wrote:
Actually, in the scenario of NFV, all the rules or behaviors of the physical
world will apply to that in the virtual world, right?
IMHO, despite of the scenarios, we should at least guarantee the consistency
of creating vms with nics and attaching nics .
I'll need to
Hi Paul:
I am very glad to do the thing that puts together the practical use cases in
which the same VM would benefit from multiple virtual connections to the same
network, whatever it takes, I think we should at least guarantee the
consistency of creating vms with nics and attaching nics.
Hi Paul:
Actually, in the scenario of NFV, all the rules or behaviors of the
physical world will apply to that in the virtual world, right?
IMHO, despite of the scenarios, we should at least guarantee the
consistency of creating vms with nics and attaching nics .
2014-01-24 CARVER, PAUL
I agree its oddly inconsistent (you'll get used to that over time ;-) - but to
me it feels more like the validation is missing on the attach that that the
create should allow two VIFs on the same network. Since these are both
virtualised (i.e share the same bandwidth, don't provide any
I agree that I'd like to see a set of use cases for this. This is the second
time in as many days that I've heard about a desire to have such a thing but I
still don't think I understand any use cases adequately.
In the physical world it makes perfect sense, LACP, MLT,
On 01/24/2014 08:33 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
I agree that I’d like to see a set of use cases for this. This is the
second time in as many days that I’ve heard about a desire to have such
a thing but I still don’t think I understand any use cases adequately.
In the physical world it makes perfect
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 02:11:02PM +, Day, Phil wrote:
I agree its oddly inconsistent (you'll get used to that over time ;-)
- but to me it feels more like the validation is missing on the attach
that that the create should allow two VIFs on the same network. Since
these are both
I am a beginer of nova, there is a problem which has confused me, in the latest
version, it not allowed to create a vm directly with two VIF in the same
network, but allowed to add a VIF that it network is same with a existed
VIF'network, there is the use case that a vm with two VIF in the same
12 matches
Mail list logo
