> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:openib-general- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Hellwig > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:49 PM > To: James Lentini > Cc: Christoph Hellwig; openib-general@openib.org > Subject: Re: [openib-general] putting in dead wood for DAPL and > similarabomination > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:11:35AM -0500, James Lentini wrote: > > DAPL has been efficiently supported on top of InfiniBand, iWARP, the > > Virtual Interface Architecture, Quadrics, and Myrinet. > > And I've not seen any kernel submittsion for either of them - and what's > important no single kDAPL application that actually shows any benefit > that way. Volatair's iSER implementation would surely be smaller when > directly written to the OpenIB interface, and is already smaller than > the whole kDAPL layer.
Christoph, the reason the iSER code is very thin is that it is using kDAPL (and Linux iSCSI), it doesn't need to deal with SA calls, CM calls, LIDs, GIDs, and a bunch of other things. Besides being RDMA transport independent DAPL enable people to code to RDMA without been intimately familiar with the HW, we saw people coding to it in days, Which I can't say the same for Verbs. Abstract layers are not new to Linux, Sockets is another type of abstraction with multiple protocols/families underneath, or even Ethernet Why aren't you suggesting to do TCP implementation for ATM cards, and one for PPP, etc' Yaron > _______________________________________________ > openib-general mailing list > openib-general@openib.org > http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib- > general _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
