On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:05:04PM +0800, Tonghao Zhang wrote: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:16 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:52:46AM -0700, xiangxia.m....@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m....@gmail.com> > >> > >> The bond of openvswitch has not good performance. > > > > I'd really say that the best solution to that is to improve the > > performance, rather than piling on another bonding layer. > Yes, i agree that. I think we can also, support an option for users to > use the native dpdk-bond device. > Because I have used the dpdk-bond in our production environment. I use > it as a interface but not a port. > > These patches are RFC and just an option for users, not to replace > ovs-bond function. > If you agree that, I can do works for this. If not, I will drop these patches.
My real worry here is that, if we add the feature, we will have to keep it forever even if core OVS bonding's performance catches up with it. I think that it's worth thinking about strategies for making core OVS bonding faster. Do we have good ideas? If we do, then I'd prefer to push in that direction. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
