3 ms·
> most of these benchmarks are measuring the same Linux kernel code This, 1000x this. I'm afraid too many people treat their CNI plugin as 'magic' whilst many
by nicolast 8y ago
> most of these benchmarks are measuring the same Linux kernel code
This, 1000x this. I'm afraid too many people treat their CNI plugin as 'magic' whilst many of them really aren't. 'Host' versus Calico is basically benchmarking the impact of a Linux bridge device, and maybe some more iptables rules than the host has (depending on whether the host benchmark has iptables enabled at all, whether there are K8s network security policies in place and enforced by Calico,...).
Also, configuration details are lacking. E.g. in the Calico benchmarks, was ipip enabled or not?
- krakrnews 8y agoYes most solutions are using Linux kernel, so what's being measured is indeed the impact of the way the kernel is being configured to achieve container networking. But that doesn't make those design choices, and the tests, meaningful. Calico, for example, contrary to your assumption, uses neither a Linux bridge device nor iptables for packet forwarding. (It does use iptables for policy enforcement, but that's not being tested here.)
- nicolast 8y agoI'm aware it doesn't use iptables, except to implement network policies, hence the reference. Good call about the bridge usage, my bad, makes sense that's not being used given Calico is L3...