From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Tue Feb 27 21:16:58 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3805F29DC3 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:16:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5763D70879 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:16:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (203-59-173-201.dyn.iinet.net.au [203.59.173.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w1RLGqAF075463 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:16:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Subject: Re: superfluous host interfaces To: Harry Schmalzbauer , Ruben Cc: FreeBSD virtualization References: <20180225131401.GA3138@v007.zyxst.net> <5A93CEB6.1080406@omnilan.de> <5A93D9D0.4090804@omnilan.de> <54f9019e-6e86-8e10-32d7-9f14d159bb0a@osfux.nl> <5A93F9DE.9090908@omnilan.de> From: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <6185840a-3517-bfd6-3715-80bf8f092f66@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:16:46 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5A93F9DE.9090908@omnilan.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:16:58 -0000 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.