From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Ahern Subject: Re: Scaling the Number of Network Interfaces on Linux Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:59:48 +0100 Message-ID: <56BB2634.3080500@cumulusnetworks.com> References: <56BB1BEB.5090200@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev To: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, Roopa Prabhu Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:36203 "EHLO mail-wm0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753961AbcBJL7y (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:59:54 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id p63so24999995wmp.1 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 03:59:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56BB1BEB.5090200@6wind.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2/10/16 12:15 PM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: > to follow your talk at nedev11, I already proposed some times ago a > patch to > remove sysctl, which was rejected. You can see the thread here: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/285840 Thanks for the reference. I'll take a look. > > Instead of removing completly the sysctl entries, another idea could be to > manage a group of interfaces which will share the same subtree. This come out from a side conversation as well -- for example to have interfaces enslaved to a bridge or bond share the same devconf. This is certainly possible to do and I can give it a look. The key point is that we clearly need a means to lighten the overhead of a network interface. David