From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E4BA0508 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 09:32:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D1442805; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 09:32:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ej1-f43.google.com (mail-ej1-f43.google.com [209.85.218.43]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E16E40E03 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 22:10:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ej1-f43.google.com with SMTP id ks6so14872055ejb.1 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:10:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=lmSEX8GN+v4lcwpydnCOjC6hq77FREow84srIF7Tlto=; b=IFCmrWjTIK1Nk62GuwT3/2v3+7o3joFjMZwgtiC3t/KUET4MF6n4zEHF+MGULLNiu3 ASErGtG4XeiNDm2e1xuNwvCYTrDs67bzjTJFbZBFxvBqKqMEZMRojWJZNmsvn/jky/at jgM3v0vxKakBgiQJlhBZbD/pppAdpCEzqedpznYjCiukkazNmeoBa1PkGOyN+X10g9ce 9TtjGXj3ve6APru5YSfMmyGb7o2ecrGihz9CTqZduxn64afxn/+VTZpJtAtUBZYkUIBJ 4IT3AuQcWSU6jxCjTNGyCsPgzVeWqcjdngpv4aAudfHX4X0zRd/lV4EMC4cTl2aLYSgA 41oA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=lmSEX8GN+v4lcwpydnCOjC6hq77FREow84srIF7Tlto=; b=dh7OljcGmcf2pxsDO0iRsaaFyTVAuOFD1PwIjGls58FZSgNHPUUYOB18DYlYrfVwiA 9a7gsDCZu0G3upuqYLJctYSwoHUcyRSvO9UAWNFo7+5PY/6nUpLHdWhA9S9z+vVA5Yye GYZr9E0Gzda/sh2h+73mbwFI6X1YAunLjSTL0I0qv6G2iO09Prztgq6vVXLUuEn42ERZ 0kmPVew9FH3wbaVYWv/CA/FvYkjM/HCg5SHoSUZXaVnQ32veKSKLrR6FmfDhHeIfmvqn 0iCnSHksMxyKdtsGRPyh7FKks0l4rYLQBcIT8DFo9wAosowsSoo74+bfNAJmMKmQaSgB o+0g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530a5Nix3LfysxNuQf093TxUzFIaVq6iXLEdIdpf6wsrtaye+ler E6xUgQPplkOhm1Y2x8hAvyczZkhaSFy0GVk6DuonEflNGfw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxPozmgTMQ56xO9M1zH2YaWfTTALMFijQVUpmycoBeCEkkbvkHzf8lzK+pgANGGm961xnXNGk8CCaubcqwo60M= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c344:b0:6b4:c768:4a9a with SMTP id ci4-20020a170906c34400b006b4c7684a9amr36526532ejb.151.1649794202774; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:10:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Yang Luan Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:09:51 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: running DPDK application on Azure To: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000068af2605dc7aa518" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 09:32:37 +0200 X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org --00000000000068af2605dc7aa518 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, We have an application using DPDK on AWS and would like to port it to Azure. What would be recommended PMD to use? If I understand correctly, we can either use the Netvsc PMD or the vdev_Netvsc PMD. It seems the Netvsc PMD is newer. An alternative is to use the mlx4 PMD by only attaching to the mlx NIC's PCI address. As I understand it, the concern is the mlx nic may not receive all the packets. We run a proprietary UDP based protocol on top of DPDK. Are all UDP packets guaranteed to be received by the mlx NIC? Thanks, Yang --00000000000068af2605dc7aa518 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

We have an application using DPDK o= n AWS and would like to port it to Azure. What would be recommended PMD to = use? If I understand correctly, we can either use the Netvsc PMD or the vde= v_Netvsc PMD. It seems the Netvsc PMD is newer.

An= alternative is to use the mlx4 PMD by only attaching to the mlx NIC's = PCI address. As I understand it, the concern is the mlx nic may not receive= all the packets. We run a proprietary UDP based protocol on top of DPDK. A= re all UDP packets guaranteed to be received by the mlx NIC?

=
Thanks,
Yang
--00000000000068af2605dc7aa518--