On 04/23/09 23:15, Patrick Pinchera wrote:
I'm working with a customer who wants to put 16 containers in an M8000 server. Each of these containers will have the need to have a "private network" that they all share so that they can all talk to each other, and the network traffic DOES NOT have to go outside of the server. Some of it is broadcast traffic.

Hi Patrick,

I blogged about how I used shared IP to resolve a customer issue with an initial need for dual default routers pointing in different directions.


Note that IP does things 'regardless' of where the traffic came from, so if there are choices, it may not make one that is in line with what you think!

I would like to know some details on how to implement this, and what the performance benefits are. I've been told the following, and would like to hear some clarifications, or if there is an issue I'm unaware of.

    * the global zone will recognize that the network traffic is staying
      inside of the global zone, and will only go down so far in the
      network stack, never having to go out the physical ethernet port.

Technically, the kernel/IP.

    * This Inter-Zone networking ends up being a memory copy to transfer
      data from one zone to the other.

After TCP/UDP and some IP processing, there may be a memory copy. I focus on the former as it is not as fast as an IPC using shared memory.

    * Do I use the loopback interface for configuring this? Or do I need
      to share a physical port among the zones?

You need one physical interface to use of ifconfig(1M) all the addresses on. It does not have to be plugged in (that was the trick in the workaround in the blog).

    * If the port is shared among the 16 containers, this will reduce
      the total number of physical gigabit ethernet ports I need for the

It may.

    * If I need a physical port, is there a particular ethernet card I
      should use over another? I know some cards have more "processing
      power" than others.

It never gets that low. It could be a 100Mbps NIC.

    * Can I use two ports and get some redundancy in case one port fails?

Well, if you are actually using the port, maybe.

    * What kind of performance benefits can I expect, vs. having to go
      outside the box to an ethernet switch? Has anyone benchmarked
      this? I know it would be dependent upon the system architecture
      (clock speed, bus speed, etc.)

I have an older blog entry on some FTP testing. I hope it still shows up.

Thanks in advance,

zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to