Re: Flow Control and Port Mirroring Revisited

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:11:52AM +1100, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:59:30AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 05:38:33PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > [ Trimmed Eric from CC list as vger was complaining that it is too long ]
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:41:22AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
> > > > >So it won't be all that simple to implement well, and before we try,
> > > > >I'd like to know whether there are applications that are helped
> > > > >by it. For example, we could try to measure latency at various
> > > > >pps and see whether the backpressure helps. netperf has -b, -w
> > > > >flags which might help these measurements.
> > > > 
> > > > Those options are enabled when one adds --enable-burst to the
> > > > pre-compilation ./configure  of netperf (one doesn't have to
> > > > recompile netserver).  However, if one is also looking at latency
> > > > statistics via the -j option in the top-of-trunk, or simply at the
> > > > histogram with --enable-histogram on the ./configure and a verbosity
> > > > level of 2 (global -v 2) then one wants the very top of trunk
> > > > netperf from:
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I have constructed a test where I run an un-paced  UDP_STREAM test in
> > > one guest and a paced omni rr test in another guest at the same time.
> > 
> > Hmm, what is this supposed to measure?  Basically each time you run an
> > un-paced UDP_STREAM you get some random load on the network.
> > You can't tell what it was exactly, only that it was between
> > the send and receive throughput.
> 
> Rick mentioned in another email that I messed up my test parameters a bit,
> so I will re-run the tests, incorporating his suggestions.
> 
> What I was attempting to measure was the effect of an unpaced UDP_STREAM
> on the latency of more moderated traffic. Because I am interested in
> what effect an abusive guest has on other guests and how that my be
> mitigated.
> 
> Could you suggest some tests that you feel are more appropriate?

Yes. To refraze my concern in these terms, besides the malicious guest
you have another software in host (netperf) that interferes with
the traffic, and it cooperates with the malicious guest.
Right?

IMO for a malicious guest you would send
UDP packets that then get dropped by the host.

For example block netperf in host so that
it does not consume packets from the socket.