Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 0/7] Add support for setting QoS

> -----Original Message----- > From: Michal Privoznik [mailto:mprivozn@redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 8:34 AM > To: Christian Benvenuti (benve) > Cc: Laine Stump; libvir-list(a)redhat.com > Subject: Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 0/7] Add support for setting QoS > > On 24.06.2011 20:00, Christian Benvenuti (benve) wrote: >>>> 3) Similarly for macvtap <network>s, will the network-wide > bandwidth >>>> limiting be applied to the physical ethernet device? This would >>>> have the side effect of including host traffic on that interface in >>>> the bandwidth totals, but I don't see a way around it. >>> With this patch as-is, shaping rules are applied only when creating >> TAP >>> devices. This mean only network types VIR_DOMAIN_NET_TYPE_NETWORK > and >>> VIR_DOMAIN_NET_TYPE_BRIDGE. >>>> >>>> 4) Finally on that topic, what about <network>s that have a pool of >>>> physical ethernets to be used macvtap-style? Is there any way we > can >>>> do bandwidth limiting on an aggregated collection of network >> interfaces? >>>> Or >>>> will attempts to configure this necessarily result in a "config not >>>> supported" log message? >>> Huh, I didn't know it is possible to have a pool of devices within > one >>> <network>. So in this case, this patch silently does nothing. >> >> The IFB (Intermediate Functional Block) allows you to >> configure aggregate QoS on multiple interfaces. >> >> /Chris >> >> > Yes, but we would then need to create those IFB devices on the fly > (e.g. > on domain startup) and I don't think there is other way than unloading > and then loading the ifb module (with different parameter) which > however > would break other domains connections. Or am I missing something? Adding support for dynamic creation/deletion of IFB devices (for example via netlink) should not be that hard. If that's the only reason for not using it, I would consider the option of extending the IFB module. /Chris