On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 05:08:13PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:05:04 -0700 > Siwei Liu <losewe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > I suspect the diveregence will be lost on most users though > > > simply because they don't even care about vfio. They just > > > want things to go fast. > > > > Like Jason said, VF isn't faster than virtio-net in all cases. It > > depends on the workload and performance metrics: throughput, latency, > > or packet per second. > > So, will it be guest/admin-controllable then where the traffic flows > through? Just because we do have a vf available after negotiation of > the feature bit, it does not necessarily mean we want to use it? Do we > (the guest) even want to make it visible in that case?
I think these ideas belong to what Alex Duyck wanted to do: some kind of advanced device that isn't tied to any network interfaces and allows workload and performance specific tuning. Way out of scope for a simple failover, and more importantly, no one is looking at even enumerating the problems involved, much less solving them. -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
