| Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view [message #4016 is a reply to message #4015] |
Mon, 26 June 2006 23:08   |
Ben Greear
Messages: 30
Registered: June 2006
|
Member |
|
|
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 03:13:17PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> yes, that sounds good to me, any numbers how that
> affects networking in general (performance wise and
> memory wise, i.e. caches and hashes) ...
I'll run some tests later today. Based on my previous tests,
I don't remember any significant overhead.
>>Using the mac-vlan and source-based routing tables, I can give a
>>unique 'interface' to each process and have each process able to bind
>>to the same IP port, for instance. Using source-based routing (by
>>binding to a local IP explicitly and adding a route table for that
>>source IP), I can give unique default routes to each interface as
>>well. Since we cannot have more than 256 routing tables, this approach
>>is currently limitted to around 250 virtual interfaces, but that is
>>still a substantial amount.
>
>
> an typically that would be sufficient IMHO, but
> of course, a more 'general' hash tag would be
> better in the long run ...
I'm willing to offer a bounty (hardware, beer, money, ...)
if someone will 'fix' this so we can have 1000 or more routes....
Being able to select these routes at a more global level (without
having to specifically bind to a local IP would be nice as well.)
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
