Search Mailing List Archives
[mininet-discuss] ovs-vswitchd support?
rlantz at cs.stanford.edu
Fri Oct 28 05:06:20 PDT 2011
On Oct 28, 2011, at 4:08 AM, Parantapa Bhattacharya wrote:
>>>> Using the multiprocessing module is interesting. I didn't use call() since it fails with large numbers of file descriptors.
>>> Did you try close_fds parameter for call? Anyway i didn't hit the
>>> limit so it didn't bother me.
>> I do that, but the issue is with the parent, not the child.
> Maybe you were opening files needed only by the child in the parent.
> Need to check on that.
It's when you make 4096 hosts and have pipes to them all.
>> 1. Perhaps my wording was unclear - by "pick" I did not mean "load" but rather "select or identify", that is, how might you *identify the library's name* in a cross-platform, non-hard-wired way?
> Hmm. Truly speaking I never thought of that. However looking at
> unshare(2) and libc(7) man page, it seems that unshare is a Linux only
> system call.
> Also de facto standard library, glibc uses libc.so.6 to point to the
> actual libc dynamic library. I wont bother much until i face a case
> where someone has a problem.
By cross-platform I meant cross-linux, although BSD does support similar features.
>> 2. That doesn't answer the question: why include support for the linux bridge if you don't need to?
> What I wrote was truly a one weekend thing :P. I wanted to get started
> quick and dirty. Figuring out how to do the stuff was more interesting
> to me during those 2 days than to write a proper mininet alternative.
> Thus bridge stayed. Moreover, linux bridge class is more or less
> negligible and basically served as my interface for the OpenVSwitch
> class. It is not also tied to any other part of the code. So if anyone
> doesn't like it just delete it :P. And by small i really meant without
> any proper mininet like shell and the other ui related stuff.
>> It's easy to bridge to the root namespace (see hwintf.py and sshd.py) -
> I agree on that. But it depends on having interfaces properly
> configured before you can start your forwarding. I wanted something
> that doesn't depend on that. I wanted a solution where I should be
> able to configure and my apps shouldn't depend on the vswitches and
Advantages and disadvantages. If you want to be able to ssh into your VMs, then they need to be configured somehow. I simply noted that it's not as difficult as one might imagine to do so.
>> Parametrized topologies are extremely useful; a library of topologies is also extremely useful; neither one prevents you building your own. One might also argue that having a mapping between graphs which can be computed upon, plotted, etc. is also useful.
> Firstly it was my opinion. I want things small simple and separate.
> And really, how difficult is it to attach hosts, switches, and links
> to a graph once you have created the graph ? Anyway, I don't think
> there is any point in arguing about opinions. Authors should have the
> choice to write stuff the way they want.
I was explaining the rationale. I'm fine with multiple API layers however.
> Parantapa Bhattacharya
More information about the mininet-discuss