<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Fernando Frediani <span dir="ltr"><<a target="_blank" href="mailto:fernando.frediani@upx.com.br">fernando.frediani@upx.com.br</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">Hi.<br>
<br>
Quick question between Linux Bridge which is used by default in oVirt and macvtap which can be used in libvirt/KVM.<br>
<br>
What are the downsides or limitations of using macvtap ? Does it have any significa performance improvement over bridge ?<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Fernando<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In theory, using a macvtap instead of a bridge is supposed to provide a better utilization.<br></div><div>It mainly depends if you reach your system limits and where.<br></div><div>We have not done such tests. If you will manage to do some, it will be great if you'll share your results.<br><br></div><div>macvtap, like macvlan has some specific traffic flow definitions: <a href="http://virt.kernelnewbies.org/MacVTap">http://virt.kernelnewbies.org/MacVTap</a><br></div><div>I guess one of the limitations it presents, is the ability to control traffic between vnics that connect to the same host nic.<br></div><div>In a bridge mode, traffic between such vnics will not be seen at the host at all, while in a VEPA mode such traffic will not<br></div><div>be routed at all (unless special measures are taken).<br><br></div><div> </div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Users mailing list<br>
<a target="_blank" href="mailto:Users@ovirt.org">Users@ovirt.org</a><br>
<a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users">http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman<wbr>/listinfo/users</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>