On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 09:51:45AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> If I understand it correctly, you can at least connect a veth pair > >>> to a bridge, right? Something like > >>> > >>> veth0 - veth1 - vhost - guest 1 > >>> eth0 - br0-| > >>> veth2 - veth3 - vhost - guest 2 > >>> > >> Heh, you don't need a bridge in this picture: > >> > >> guest 1 - vhost - veth0 - veth1 - vhost guest 2 > > > > Sure, but the setup I described is the one that I would expect > > to see in practice because it gives you external connectivity. > > > > Measuring two guests communicating over a veth pair is > > interesting for finding the bottlenecks, but of little > > practical relevance. > > > > Arnd <>< > > Yeah, this would be the config I would be interested in. Hmm, this wouldn't be the config to use for the benchmark though: there are just too many variables. If you want both guest to guest and guest to host, create 2 nics in the guest. Here's one way to do this: -net nic,model=virtio,vlan=0 -net user,vlan=0 -net nic,vlan=1,model=virtio,vhost=veth0 -redir tcp:8022::22 -net nic,model=virtio,vlan=0 -net user,vlan=0 -net nic,vlan=1,model=virtio,vhost=veth1 -redir tcp:8023::22 In guests, for simplicity, configure eth1 and eth0 to use separate subnets. Long term, I hope macvlan will be extended to support guest to guest. > Regards, > -Greg > -- 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
