Sounds fine with me - please go ahead, and thanks On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:26 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet <gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer George ! > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 5:46 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: > Or copy the handshake protocol design of the TCP BTL... > > > the main difference between oob/tcp and btl/tcp is the way we resolve the > situation in which two processes send their first message to each other at > the same time. > > in oob/tcp, all (e.g. one or two) sockets are closed and the higher vpid is > directed to retry establishing a connection. > > in btl/tcp, the useless socket is closed (e.g. the one that was connect-ed on > the lower vpid and the one that was accept-ed on the higher vpid. > > > my first impression is that oob/tcp is un-necessary complex and it should use > the simpler and most efficient protocol of btl/tcp. > that being said, this conclusion could be too naive and for some good reasons > i ignore, the btl/tcp handshake protocol might not be a good fit for oob/tcp. > > any thoughts ? > > i will revamp oob/tcp in order to use the same btl/tcp handshake protocol > from tomorrow unless indicated otherwise > > Cheers, > > Gilles > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/09/15885.php
