From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
To: Benjamin Cronce <bcronce@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cake] faster scheduling, maybe
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:51:51 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1606061550410.12900@nftneq.ynat.uz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ_ENFGNWojxZceMY13VPF=orDgu2RcF616F-hu4Y+Mz+S1TMg@mail.gmail.com>
That works as long as the right answer is to evenly share the bandwidth between
the VMs.
But what if one VM is running a single elephant flow while another VM is a VoIP
server with hundreds of connections? Is it still correct to split the bandwidth
evenly between the two?
David Lang
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Benjamin Cronce wrote:
> Preliminary benchmarks of new network APIs like netmap are showing 20mpps
> between guest and host for untrusted guests and 70mpps to trusted guests,
> and scales near linearly with more cores. With that many pps per guest, why
> not let the host do an AQM? High end service NICs support multiple virtual
> devices where you can tell the NIC to evenly distribute bandwidth among the
> virtual devices. It's already mostly a solved problem, just some people
> reinventing the wheel. I know FreeBSD is currently looking at adding netmap
> to connect the guest to the host so the guests can do line-rate 10Gb and
> almost 40Gb.
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:48 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Dave Taht wrote:
>>
>> http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/papers/20160511-mysched-preprint.pdf
>>>
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> They don't even try for fairness between flows, they are just looking at
>> fairness between different VMs. they tell a VM that it has complete access
>> to the NIC for a time, then give another VM complete access to the NIC. At
>> best they put each VMs traffic into a different hardware queue in the NIC.
>>
>> This avoids all AQM decisions on the part of the host OS, because the
>> packets never get to the host OS.
>>
>> The speed improvement is by bypassing the host OS and just having the VMs
>> deliver packets directly to the NIC. This speeds things up, but at the cost
>> of any coordination across VMs. Each VM can run fq_codel but it's much
>> corser timeslicing between VMs.
>>
>> David Lang
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cake mailing list
>> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
>>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-06 22:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-06 18:24 Dave Taht
2016-06-06 18:48 ` David Lang
2016-06-06 18:55 ` Dave Taht
2016-06-06 19:25 ` David Lang
2016-06-06 22:34 ` Benjamin Cronce
2016-06-06 22:51 ` David Lang [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cake.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.02.1606061550410.12900@nftneq.ynat.uz \
--to=david@lang.hm \
--cc=bcronce@gmail.com \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=dave.taht@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox