similar to: Domain migration

Hi , I have two virtual machines VM1 and VM2. Then I have added eth0 of my VM to 'default' network. Use case :- I want to monitor all traffic on virbr0('default' network). Steps followed :- 1. Add VM1 eth0 to virbr0 2. Add VM2 eth1 to virbr0 3. brctl setageing ovsbr0 0 ..(To put bridge in promiscuous) Now I am running tcpdump on eth1 of VM2 and trying to ping

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/06/2014 10:06 AM, Yuanzhen Gu wrote: > > yes, I got your point, thanks very much Eric. > > not entirely, because you still top-posted. > > got it entirely this time, not top-posted. > > > > If I want to take a distributed snapshot, which need pause all the VMs > and >

[It may be necessary to remove virtio-dev at lists.oasis-open.org from CC if you are a non-TC member.] Hi, Some modern networking applications bypass the kernel network stack so that rx/tx rings and DMA buffers can be directly mapped. This is typical in DPDK applications where virtio-net currently is one of several NIC choices. Existing virtio-net implementations are not optimized for VM-to-VM

[It may be necessary to remove virtio-dev at lists.oasis-open.org from CC if you are a non-TC member.] Hi, Some modern networking applications bypass the kernel network stack so that rx/tx rings and DMA buffers can be directly mapped. This is typical in DPDK applications where virtio-net currently is one of several NIC choices. Existing virtio-net implementations are not optimized for VM-to-VM

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

Am 2015-04-27 um 12:17 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Luke Gorrie <luke at snabb.co> wrote: >> On 24 April 2015 at 15:22, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> The motivation for making VM-to-VM fast is that while software >>> switches on the host are efficient today (thanks to vhost-user), there

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> > any delay or blocking

On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> > any delay or blocking

On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> any delay or blocking of a single packet

On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> any delay or blocking of a single packet

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com> wrote: > Am 2015-04-27 um 14:35 schrieb Jan Kiszka: >> Am 2015-04-27 um 12:17 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: >>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Luke Gorrie <luke at snabb.co> wrote: >>>> On 24 April 2015 at 15:22, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com> wrote: > Am 2015-04-27 um 14:35 schrieb Jan Kiszka: >> Am 2015-04-27 um 12:17 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: >>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Luke Gorrie <luke at snabb.co> wrote: >>>> On 24 April 2015 at 15:22, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>

On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote: > On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >>>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation

On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote: > On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >>>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Luke Gorrie <luke at snabb.co> wrote: > On 24 April 2015 at 15:22, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The motivation for making VM-to-VM fast is that while software >> switches on the host are efficient today (thanks to vhost-user), there >> is no efficient solution if the software switch is a VM. > >

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Luke Gorrie <luke at snabb.co> wrote: > On 24 April 2015 at 15:22, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The motivation for making VM-to-VM fast is that while software >> switches on the host are efficient today (thanks to vhost-user), there >> is no efficient solution if the software switch is a VM. > >

On 2015-08-31 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Hello! > During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top > of ivshmem. No, not on top of ivshmem. On top of shared memory. Our model is different from the simplistic ivshmem. > I have considered it, and came up with an alternative > that has several advantages over that - please see below. > Comments welcome. >