Scaling the Number of Network Interfaces on Linux
Subsystems (2)
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
Quoted 4 lines · Nicolas Dichtel
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.
Quoted 3 lines
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
Quoted 1 line · David Ahern
On 2/10/16 12:15 PM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
[snip]
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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.
Quoted 3 lines
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.