On 6/9/22 21:39, Mark Michelson wrote:
> I'm in agreement with Han and Numan that this is a good idea.
>
Thanks, Han, Mark, Numan!
> One thing that may be worth considering (maybe as a follow-up) is a
> re-think of parallelization when dp groups are always enabled. With dp
> groups disabled,
I'm in agreement with Han and Numan that this is a good idea.
One thing that may be worth considering (maybe as a follow-up) is a
re-think of parallelization when dp groups are always enabled. With dp
groups disabled, the lflows can be divided into equal parts, processed
in parallel, and then
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 1:19 AM Han Zhou wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:20 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> >
> > In large scale scenarios this option hugely reduces the size of the
> > Southbound database positively affecting end to end performance. In
> > such scenarios there's no real reason to
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:20 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>
> In large scale scenarios this option hugely reduces the size of the
> Southbound database positively affecting end to end performance. In
> such scenarios there's no real reason to ever disable datapath groups.
>
> In lower scale scenarios
In large scale scenarios this option hugely reduces the size of the
Southbound database positively affecting end to end performance. In
such scenarios there's no real reason to ever disable datapath groups.
In lower scale scenarios any potential overhead due to logical datapath
groups is, very
