From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8B7C37E for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:07:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wizk4 with SMTP id k4so66900453wiz.1 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 02:07:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=D2pmtgqcTZR9zK86BUIkyhQEBH4HW2HiPbgXFuIkT6E=; b=P4WwxkFgmLNFgWZAsRvnxuLa7477ia/aYVxV4OV0+QtjNXLdVg8QJU0o/1fsAmMMDP eKehFSN2yIgjngE2V2zVW7K7aLyXgoqqOgyDje1u/V+C9lkLNEa7Iiemyqxq7KWwcnwQ FdNSYCHWeqKp5yyQLRISM73mS2vJQWje/cBzZY3BDE8HKIMmiXFOoYfSWLqdM8snX2p/ sULK5jiUfRsPeoDglGN+2Oi0AiWRSyTwsq0EsKtWAVYPA/9HwxQFVFMvmk72mrxunE9A minpWGfXrQYBRoN4RgNX0jUo8XK1Xkh/U9m+Mjvd9qqlTH/Sf+gziQZ9d9K6eb0R+Jj1 r1Iw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.172.130 with SMTP id bc2mr12895243wjc.85.1430039270539; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 02:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lukego@gmail.com Received: by 10.27.134.198 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 02:07:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150424170035.GC32445@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D1A917@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D2C241@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <20150424170035.GC32445@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:07:50 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: unjHiJxgEQo1z8CQpHteFtGrqAw Message-ID: From: Luke Gorrie To: Neil Horman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 09:07:50 -0000 Hi Neil, Thanks for taking the time to reflect on my ideas. On 24 April 2015 at 19:00, Neil Horman wrote: > DPDK will always be > something of a niche market for user to whoom every last ounce of > performance is > the primary requirement This does seem like an excellent position. It is succinct, it sets expectations for users, and it tells developers how to resolve trade-offs (performance takes priority over FOO, for all values of FOO). I agree that this niche will always be there and so it seems like there is a permanent place in the world for DPDK. This focus on performance also makes DPDK useful as a reference for other projects. People making trade-offs between performance and other factors (portability, compatibility, simplicity, etc) can use DPDK as a yardstick to estimate what this costs. This benefits everybody doing networking on x86. I suppose that a separate discussion would be how to increase participation from people who are using DPDK as a reference but not as a software dependency. That is perhaps a less pressing topic for the future. OVS is a great example here. If we can make it easy for them to use DPDK > to get > better performance, I think we'll see a larger uptake in adoption. > I will be interested to see how this plays out. I agree it is a great opportunity for DPDK and a chance to take it mainstream. I also think it is fundamentally a missed opportunity of the kernel. OVS would be just fine with a kernel data plane that performs adequately. OVS users don't seem to be in the "maximum performance at any cost" niche defined above. Many of them benefit a lot from the kernel integration. However, if the kernel can't promise the meet their performance requirements then DPDK does seem like a knight in shining armour. It's an exciting time in open source networking :-) Cheers, -Luke