* Scaling the Number of Network Interfaces on Linux
@ 2016-02-10 11:15 Nicolas Dichtel
2016-02-10 11:59 ` David Ahern
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Dichtel @ 2016-02-10 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roopa Prabhu, David Ahern; +Cc: netdev
David, Roopa,
to follow your talk at nedev11, I already proposed some times ago a patch to
remove sysctl, which was rejected. You can see the thread here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/285840
Instead of removing completly the sysctl entries, another idea could be to
manage a group of interfaces which will share the same subtree.
Regards,
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Scaling the Number of Network Interfaces on Linux
2016-02-10 11:15 Scaling the Number of Network Interfaces on Linux Nicolas Dichtel
@ 2016-02-10 11:59 ` David Ahern
2016-02-10 15:12 ` Nicolas Dichtel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Ahern @ 2016-02-10 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nicolas.dichtel, Roopa Prabhu; +Cc: netdev
On 2/10/16 12:15 PM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> to follow your talk at nedev11, I already proposed some times ago a
> patch to
> remove sysctl, which was rejected. You can see the thread here:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/285840
Thanks for the reference. I'll take a look.
>
> Instead of removing completly the sysctl entries, another idea could be to
> manage a group of interfaces which will share the same subtree.
This come out from a side conversation as well -- for example to have
interfaces enslaved to a bridge or bond share the same devconf.
This is certainly possible to do and I can give it a look. The key point
is that we clearly need a means to lighten the overhead of a network
interface.
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Scaling the Number of Network Interfaces on Linux
2016-02-10 11:59 ` David Ahern
@ 2016-02-10 15:12 ` Nicolas Dichtel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Dichtel @ 2016-02-10 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Ahern, Roopa Prabhu; +Cc: netdev
Le 10/02/2016 12:59, David Ahern a écrit :
> On 2/10/16 12:15 PM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
[snip]
>> Instead of removing completly the sysctl entries, another idea could be to
>> manage a group of interfaces which will share the same subtree.
>
> This come out from a side conversation as well -- for example to have interfaces
> enslaved to a bridge or bond share the same devconf.
It could also be interesting to have another way to group interfaces. For
example, group all ppp interfaces.
>
> This is certainly possible to do and I can give it a look. The key point is that
> we clearly need a means to lighten the overhead of a network interface.
Yes, I agree.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-02-10 15:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-02-10 11:15 Scaling the Number of Network Interfaces on Linux Nicolas Dichtel
2016-02-10 11:59 ` David Ahern
2016-02-10 15:12 ` Nicolas Dichtel
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.