Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Dmitry Mishin <dim@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> Fully agree. But as I can see, your code arises no more comments, than ours. >> So, we need to find other ways. Do you have more ideas? > > Yes. > > To some extent we should probably compare notes and see which parts > of the various implementations are good/bad. > > For the most part from what I could see at least when doing L2 level > work the two patchsets touched roughly the same code in roughly the > same ways the differences the big differences being in how complete > one patchset one area or not. So while push/pop helped a little with > the argument passing it was small enough it wasn't a big deal either > way. > > The planetlab folks are busily evaluating and collecting some benchmarks > numbers. Last I heard OpenVZ, vs mine, vs native were all pretty much > a wash on bandwidth and latency. For cpu consumption OpenVZ and mine > when multiple guests were running were worse by a small factor, cache > effects was the guess. If those results hold and the costs of an L2 > namespace stays firmly in the noise it will be hard to justify any > kind of L3 namespace. Definitively, you are against L3 namespace :) > My sysctl stuff has gone in, and I will have sysfs support as soon > as the network sysfs support settles down. So there is some progress > there. > > I suspect we won't have any real problems merging an tunnel device > like etun or veth as long as we don't need the push/pop in the middle > to make it work. I was thinking about that a little. > > I asked David Miller if he had looked at what I had posted and he > replied that he had wanted to but he was swamped with bug fixes > and sparc maintenance. > > So I expect what happened is that is the I posted too much code at > once so it was hard to digest. Yes. > My current plan is: > - kill the stupid irq migration bug on x86_64 (sucks way to much time) > - finish up the sysctl and other network namespace helper support > - discuss my network namespace patches and see what Dmitry and > Daniel and any other interested parties think of them. Ok for me, please send part by part patches, it will be more digest. > - merge a tunnel device > - post network namespace code in the smallest chunk I can stand > and ask that it be included. > Hopefully real working real working code that is ready to go > will either get merged or there will be reasonable feedback > on why it was not merged. I agree. > - Somewhere in there general maintenance, testing and completing > of the network namespace code I have. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers