Dmitry Mishin wrote: > On Monday 04 December 2006 19:43, Herbert Poetzl wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 06:19:00PM +0300, Dmitry Mishin wrote: >>> On Sunday 03 December 2006 19:00, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>>> Ok. Just a quick summary of where I see the discussion. >>>> >>>> We all agree that L2 isolation is needed at some point. >>> As we all agreed on this, may be it is time to send patches >>> one-by-one? For the beggining, I propose to resend Cedric's >>> empty namespace patch as base for others - it is really empty, >>> but necessary in order to move further. >>> >>> After this patch and the following net namespace unshare >>> patch will be accepted, >> well, I have neither seen any performance tests showing >> that the following is true: >> >> - no change on network performance without the >> space enabled >> - no change on network performance on the host >> with the network namespaces enabled >> - no measureable overhead inside the network >> namespace >> - good scaleability for a larger number of network >> namespaces > These questions are for complete L2 implementation, not for these 2 empty > patches. If you need some data relating to Andrey's implementation, I'll get > it. Which test do you accept? tbench ? With the following scenarii: * intra host communication (one time with IP on eth and one time with 127.0.0.1) * inter host communication Each time: - a single network namespace - with 100 network namespace. 1 server communicating and 99 listening but doing nothing.