From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.147]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4583B4CAD for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:45:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.86.154]) by tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w1N7j6Gu009591; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:45:06 +0900 Received: from vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD2A6392C9; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:45:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from jcms-pop21.ecl.ntt.co.jp (jcms-pop21.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.87.134]) by vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9B66392AD; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:45:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (watercress.nslab.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.13.73]) by jcms-pop21.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B9B1400D46; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:45:06 +0900 (JST) References: From: Yasufumi Ogawa Message-ID: <20dd4421-5a82-93ca-e270-2a09a3a9fedb@lab.ntt.co.jp> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:43:17 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CC-Mail-RelayStamp: 1 To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: "spp@dpdk.org" X-TM-AS-MML: disable Subject: Re: [spp] secondary applications X-BeenThere: spp@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Soft Patch Panel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 07:45:08 -0000 On 2018/02/22 20:53, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > Hi Yasufumi, > > For primary process there is single binary, but for secondary there are three now: > nfv > vf > vm > > and from their name it is not clear what they are for and what is the difference. SPP was started as a trial PoC app and name convention was not considered well. I think it must be revised. > > Do you know what is the difference between them? nfv and vm are simply forwarding and almost same but different for running on host or guest. In addition, vm behaves as secondary but implemented as primary in guest actually. On the other hand, vf is including worker thread for classifying or merging packets for more realistic usecases. > > > And does it make sense to merge them into single binary, to escape from > maintaining three different binaries? Or can we eliminate some? I think vf might be merged to nfv. I agree with you to reduce maintaining costs, so I'd like to try to consider it. I have already refactored spp.py first because all of classes and methods are included in one file which makes maintaining so hard, and usability is poor. After done refactoring spp.py, I will start refactoring for secondary including name convention. Thanks > > Thanks, > ferruh > > -- Yasufumi Ogawa NTT Network Service Systems Labs