Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:16:46 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Harry Schmalzbauer <freebsd@omnilan.de>, Ruben <mail@osfux.nl> Cc: FreeBSD virtualization <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: superfluous host interfaces Message-ID: <6185840a-3517-bfd6-3715-80bf8f092f66@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <5A93F9DE.9090908@omnilan.de> References: <20180225131401.GA3138@v007.zyxst.net> <5A93CEB6.1080406@omnilan.de> <a0ccbf77-ec23-127c-0529-ddb05dc689e3@osfux.nl> <5A93D9D0.4090804@omnilan.de> <54f9019e-6e86-8e10-32d7-9f14d159bb0a@osfux.nl> <5A93F9DE.9090908@omnilan.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26/2/18 8:13 pm, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote: > > > If you're happy with your setup, I don't think you gain anything from > switching to ng_bridge(4), besides learning to control netgraph(4) > (which is very desirable imho). > I haven't had time left to do useful benchmarking regarding ng_bridge(4) > vs. if_bridge(4). I even don't know if netgraph nodes are still limited > to single threads. depends on the node.. teh framework allows many threads to traverse it at a time but some nodes have resources that need guarding.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6185840a-3517-bfd6-3715-80bf8f092f66>