OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [RFC] network namespaces
Re: [RFC] network namespaces [message #5936 is a reply to message #5915] Tue, 05 September 2006 15:44 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
dev is currently offline  dev
Messages: 1693
Registered: September 2005
Location: Moscow
Senior Member

> Yes, performance is probably one issue.
>
> My concerns was for layer 2 / layer 3 virtualization. I agree a layer 2
> isolation/virtualization is the best for the "system container".
> But there is another family of container called "application container",
> it is not a system which is run inside a container but only the
> application. If you want to run a oracle database inside a container,
> you can run it inside an application container without launching <init>
> and all the services.
>
> This family of containers are used too for HPC (high performance
> computing) and for distributed checkpoint/restart. The cluster runs
> hundred of jobs, spawning them on different hosts inside an application
> container. Usually the jobs communicates with broadcast and multicast.
> Application containers does not care of having different MAC address and
> rely on a layer 3 approach.
>
> Are application containers comfortable with a layer 2 virtualization ? I
> don't think so, because several jobs running inside the same host
> communicate via broadcast/multicast between them and between other jobs
> running on different hosts. The IP consumption is a problem too: 1
> container == 2 IP (one for the root namespace/ one for the container),
> multiplicated with the number of jobs. Furthermore, lot of jobs == lot
> of virtual devices.
>
> However, after a discussion with Kirill at the OLS, it appears we can
> merge the layer 2 and 3 approaches if the level of network
> virtualization is tunable and we can choose layer 2 or layer 3 when
> doing the "unshare". The determination of the namespace for the incoming
> traffic can be done with an specific iptable module as a first step.
> While looking at the network namespace patches, it appears that the
> TCP/UDP part is **very** similar at what is needed for a layer 3 approach.
>
> Any thoughts ?
My humble opinion is that your approach doesn't intersect with this one.
So we can freely go with both *if needed*.
And hear the comments from network guru guys and what and how to improve.

So I suggest you at least to send the patches, so we could discuss it.

Thanks,
Kirill
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [PATCH 2.6.18] ext2: errors behaviour fix
Next Topic: 64bit DMA in i2o_block
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Sep 08 23:32:54 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.09511 seconds