> Thanks for explaining. Would publishing a k-v store protocol spec for > use with vsock?
Does "standard protocol over vsock" exist in virtio-spec? We can say "we use this protocol on vsock for this device, and it works very well", but I guess it is still different than writing it somewhere in the spec. On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 7:38 AM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
