Re: Network throughput limits for local VM <-> VM communication

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Fischer, Anna wrote:
I am using two bridges, and yes, in theory, the router should be the only connection between the two guests. However, without VLANs, the tun interface will pass packets to all tap interfaces. It has to, as it doesn't know to which one the packet has to go to. It does not look at packets, it simply copies buffers from userspace to the tap interface in the kernel. The tap interface then eventually drops the packet, if the MAC address does not match its own. So packets will not actually go across both bridges, because the tap interface that should not receive the packet does drop it. However, it does receive the packet and processes it to some extend which causes some overhead. As I was told by someone at KVM/RedHat, this does not happen when using VLANs as then there will be a direct mapping between any tun<->tap device and so no packet replication across multiple tap devices.

This only happens if the receiving tap never sends out packets. If the tap interface does send out packets, the bridge will associate their MAC address with that interface, and future packets will only be forwarded there.

Is this your scenario?

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux