From experience this is still the case for VNIC's, not sure if that
changed with vnd, but I don't think it did. rm will probably reply if he
sees this with the proper answer.
On 2016-01-25 21:36, the outsider wrote:
The good old Solaris 10 already "sensed" IP traffic from zones and
kept all IP-traffic that didn't have to go "on wire" inside its own
hardware.
Good habit on hardware with multiple NICs is to keep a NIC unattached
from the network so you can assign it to every zone that doesn't need
outgoing traffic. By that you spare a port on the switch also. The NIC
has to be up and plumbed for zones to use it.
But this can be old information for SmartOS, but I can't judge that.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Verzonden: maandag 25 januari 2016 19:42
Aan: smartos-discuss <[email protected]>
Onderwerp: Re: [smartos-discuss] Fastest link between 2 VMs
----- On Jan 25, 2016, at 1:10 PM, Robert Mustacchi [email protected]
wrote:
On 1/25/16 8:53 , [email protected] wrote:
----- On Jan 25, 2016, at 11:04 AM, Robert Mustacchi [email protected]
wrote:
On 1/25/16 5:38 , Humberto Ramirez wrote:
What would you say is the improvement over a standard vnic? Does it
approach a 10G link speed?
An etherstub is a local virtual switch. VNICs can be created on top
of it like they can be created on top of normal physical devices.
When you're only focusing on loopback devices and virtio devices,
link speed is a red herring and you should just ignore it. Link
speed only matters when you have a physical device as that speed
indicates the upper band of the data rate that it can put on the
wire.
If you've rigged everything up over an etherstub then you'll never
go out over the physical device; however, devices will still show a
link speed, because there's really no way not to. For example, a
virtio device in a hardware virtualized guest has no way of knowing
what the link speed of the device its going out over is. It could be
100 Mbit/s,
1 Gbit/s, 10 Gbit/s, or 40 Gbit/s, etc. and still only show the link
speed in the guest as 1 Gbit/s.
Practically, the limits of link speed for a VNIC are based on the
underlying device or the kernel data path, so it can saturate a 10
Gbit/s device. On the flip side, due to how the hardware
virtualization is currently implemented, it is unlikely that you
will see speeds much higher than 1 Gbit/s.
would you please give an example of how one would create an etherstub
(acting as a virtual switch) in such a way that the vms local to the
given smartos machine would leverage that, while vms on other smartos
machines would still be able to reach the vms connected to the
etherstub?
Let me try to clarify how all this works. I don't think you've done
anything wrong per se.
Whenever you create a VNIC, you traditionally have to specify it as
being over a specific physical device. Logically you can think of this
like as every VNIC and every physical device are plugged into a switch
and frames which don't match any devices on that switch (eg. other
VNICs and the physical device itself) will be transmitted out over the
wire of the physical device. Note, you never create this switch, nor
can you manage it or configure. It's all set up by automatically for
you.
An etherstub is similar in concept. You can think of it like the
physical device in the above example, except that if the destination
MAC address is not a VNIC on the etherstub, then the frames will be
dropped.
The etherstub itself has no MAC address.
So in this case, the only time I'd employ an etherstub is if I wanted
to have a network that was local to the host itself. There are a
couple reasons you might use this. The primary use case I see is that
folks want to have one zone that acts as a router or firewall and all
the rest are on their own private network that uses the one zone to
get there. In this case, they'll put the router/firewall over both a
physical device and an etherstub.
Now, there's also no reason that you have to use etherstubs. For
example, at Joyent, we don't use etherstubs at all, because there's
nothing we have that we want to bind to the confines of a single host.
Even when there are private networks, they span more than one physical
host.
Does that help clarify things at all?
Robert
it does indeed, and i appreciate the time you put into your response.
it's also nice to know i haven't been limiting my bandwidth all this
time. :)
-------------------------------------------
smartos-discuss
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/184463/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/184463/25769125-55cfbc00
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=25769125&id_secret=25769125-7688e9fb
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
