Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 0/5] netns: allow to identify peer netns

David Ahern [off-list ref] writes:

On 9/26/14, 7:40 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:

quoted

quoted

No, I don't want to monitor anything. Even if I wanted, I would just
start one
daemon in each netns instead of one for all.

Ok you don't want, but some other people (not only me) want it! And
having one
daemon per netns does not scale: there are scenarii with thousand netns
which
are dynamically created and deleted.

An example of the scaling problem using quagga (old but still seems to be a
relevant data point):


https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-users/2010-February/011351.html

"2k VRFs that would be 2.6G"

And that does not include the overhead of each namespace -- roughly
200kB/namespace on one kernel I checked (v3.10). So that's a ballpark of 3G of
memory.

Resetting the conversation just a little bit.

When I wrote the "ip netns" support I never expected that all
applications would want to run in a specific network namespace.  All
that is needed is one socket per network namespace.

Furthermore one socket or one procesess per network namespaces is
completely orthogonal to the patches presented.  I do not see a
identifying where the far end of a veth pair or similar set of
networking objects as anything that even closely resembles a path to a
using only a single socket.

So I think this whole subthread is quite silly and grossly off track.

Eric