On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 12:28:14PM -0700, Hao Chen wrote: > > Can you share a bit about the reason for defining a new VIRTIO device > > instead of running an existing key-value store over virtio-vsock or > > virtio-net? > > The reason for defining a virtio-parameter-server device is we are interacting > with some devices in a "key-value store" pattern. For example, we interact > with > "vehicle device" in Android using this pattern. > > Ad-hoc protocol over vsock to a k-v store works, but we want to > standardize these > types of devices so that the VM doesn't need to know the > vendor-specific key-value > protocols for a specific device implementation.
Thanks for explaining. Would publishing a k-v store protocol spec for use with vsock? That way it's a well-known protocol that anyone wishing to use k-v store functionality can use. One nice effect of defining a protocol over vsock instead of a new VIRTIO device is that implementation could be as simple as a Python/Go/Rust/etc library that's easy to integrate into applications. A VIRTIO device is more low-level and complex, making it more costly for others to implement. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
