| 1 |
"J. Roeleveld" <joost@××××××××.org> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> create 1 bridge per physical network port |
| 4 |
> add the physical ports to the respective bridges |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
That tends to make the ports disappear, i. e. become unusable, because |
| 7 |
the bridge swallows them. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> pass virtual NICs to the VMs which are part of the bridges. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Doesn't that create more CPU load than passing the port? And at some |
| 12 |
point, you may saturate the bandwidth of the port. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> But it's your server, you decide on the complexity. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I stopped passing physical NICs when I was encountering issues with newer |
| 17 |
> cards. |
| 18 |
> They are now resolved, but passing virtual interfaces is simpler and more |
| 19 |
> reliable. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The only issue I have with passing the port is that the kernel module |
| 22 |
must not be loaded from the initrd image. So I don't see how fighting |
| 23 |
with the bridges would make things easier. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons |
| 28 |
might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. |
Archives