On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 02:11:02PM +0000, Day, Phil wrote: > I agree its oddly inconsistent (you'll get used to that over time ;-) > - but to me it feels more like the validation is missing on the attach > that that the create should allow two VIFs on the same network. Since > these are both virtualised (i.e share the same bandwidth, don't provide > any additional resilience, etc) I'm curious about why you'd want two VIFs > in this configuration ?
Whether it has benefits or not will depend on the type of network configuration being used. If the guest virtual NICs are connected to a physical NIC that is an SRIOV device using macvtap, then there is certainly potential for performance benefits. ie each of the VIFs could be connected to a separate virtual function on the physical NIC, and so benefit from separate transmit queues in the hardware. NB, this is somewhat academic wrt openstack though, since I don't believe any of the NIC configs we support can do this kind of cleverness macvtap configs. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev