At 11:49 AM 2/21/2007, Sean Hefty wrote:
I sent a message on this topic to the IBTA several days ago, but I am still
awaiting details (likely early next week).
Unclear if that will occur. I just responded to some e-mail in the IBTA on
the router subject as well.Given that discussion, I
At 02:05 PM 2/15/2007, Sean Hefty wrote:
Is this first an IBTA problem to solve if you believe there is a problem?
Based on my interpretation, I do not believe that there's an error in the
architecture. It seems consistent. Additional clarification of what
PathRecord fields mean when the GIDs
At 09:37 PM 2/14/2007, Devesh Sharma wrote:
On 2/14/07, Michael Krause [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05:37 AM 2/13/2007, Devesh Sharma wrote:
On 2/12/07, Devesh Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/10/07, Tang, Changqing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not for the receiver, but the sender
At 11:39 AM 2/15/2007, Sean Hefty wrote:
Ideas were presented around trying to construct an 'inter-subnet path record'
that contained the following:
- Side A GRH.SGID = active side's Port GID
- Side A GRH.DGID = passive side's Port GID
- Side A LRH.SLID = any active side's port LID
I do not see the need for any of this. The router protocol should be
designed to work with each subnet's SM / SA to provide information on what
GID prefix is on each router Port. This is used to look up the subnet
local LRH fields.
The only cross-subnet challenges are global based, e.g.
At 01:36 PM 2/14/2007, Sean Hefty wrote:
Assume that the active and passive sides of a connection request are on
different subnets and:
Active side - LID 1
Active side router - LID 2
Passive side - LID 93
Passive side router - LID 94
What values are you suggesting are used for:
Active side QP
At 02:02 PM 2/14/2007, Sean Hefty wrote:
Mike, are you expecting that routers will modify CM messages as they flow
between subnets?
The router parses the GRH, strips the LRH, attaches a new LRH to the next
hop with the contents of the LRH filled in per its internal
policies. Nothing more for
At 03:48 PM 2/12/2007, Sean Hefty wrote:
An endnode look up should be to find the address vector to the
remote. A look up may return multiple vectors. The SLID would
correspond to each local subnet router port that acts as a first-hop
destination to the remote subnet.I don't see why the
At 05:37 AM 2/13/2007, Devesh Sharma wrote:
On 2/12/07, Devesh Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/10/07, Tang, Changqing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not for the receiver, but the sender will be severely slowed down by
having to wait for the RNR timeouts.
RNR = Receiver Not Ready so
At 04:10 PM 2/12/2007, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:31:15PM -0800, Michael Krause wrote:
TClass is intended to communicate the end-to-end QoS desired. TClass is
then mapped to a SL that is local to each subnet. A flow label is
intended to much the same as in the IP
At 01:14 PM 2/13/2007, Sean Hefty wrote:
It does not need to comprehend the remote subnet(s) LID.
That is the router protocol to determine. CM also must understand the
GIDs involved which the router will process to figure out its LID mapping
to the next hop.
The CM REQ carries the remote
At 02:02 PM 2/13/2007, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:49:57PM -0800, Michael Krause wrote:
Translated into a network with routers this means that for a RC flow
to successfully work both the *forward* and *reverse* direction must
traverse the same router *LID* not just
Kanevsky email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Appliance Inc. phone: 781-768-5395
1601 Trapelo Rd. - Suite 16.Fax: 781-895-1195
Waltham, MA 02451 central phone: 781-768-5300
-Original Message-
From: Michael Krause [mailto:[EMAIL
At 09:10 PM 2/11/2007, Devesh Sharma wrote:
On 2/10/07, Tang, Changqing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not for the receiver, but the sender will be severely slowed down by
having to wait for the RNR timeouts.
RNR = Receiver Not Ready so by definition, the data flow
isn't going to
progress
At 12:56 PM 2/12/2007, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:23:06AM -0800, Sean Hefty wrote:
Ah, I think I missed the key step in your scheme.. You plan to query
the local SM for SGID=remote DGID=local? (ie reversed from 'normal'. I
was thinking only about the SGID=local
At 02:47 PM 2/12/2007, Sean Hefty wrote:
1) What does the TClass and FlowLabel returned from SGID=local
DGID=remote mean?
Do you use it in the Node1 - Node2 direction or the Node2 - Node1
direction
or both?
Maybe it would help if we can agree on a set of expectations. These
At 03:41 PM 2/7/2007, Roland Dreier wrote:
Changqing What I mean is that, is there any performance penalty
Changqing for receiver's overall performance if RNR happens
Changqing continuously on one of the QP ?
Not for the receiver, but the sender will be severely slowed down by
At 07:43 AM 2/8/2007, Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
That is correct.
I am working with Krishna on it.
Expect patches soon.
By the way the problem is not DAPL specific
and so is a proposed solution.
There are 3 aspects of the solution.
One is APIs. We suggest that we do not augment these.
That is a
At 12:39 PM 2/8/2007, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 14:54, Sean Hefty wrote:
Hum, you mean to meet the LID validation rules of 9.6.1.5? That is a
huge PITA..
[IMHO, 9.6.1.5 C9-54 is a mistake, if there is a GRH then the LRH.SLID
should not be validated against the QP
At 02:02 AM 11/10/2006, john t wrote:
Hi,
I got following readings in one of my experiments:
Single 64-bit xeon machine (2 dual-core 3.2 GHz Intel CPUs, linux FC4,
OFED 1.0) with two Mellanox DDR (4x) HCAs (each having two ports and each
connected to a PCI x8 interface) is connected to a
At 02:43 PM 10/30/2006, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 17:29, Michael Krause wrote:
At 02:05 PM 10/30/2006, Roland Dreier wrote:
Hal So rate = speed * width ?
Yes, you should see the right think on DDR systems etc.
Strange. Bandwidth = signaling rate * width
At 02:05 PM 10/30/2006, Roland Dreier wrote:
Hal So rate = speed * width ?
Yes, you should see the right think on DDR systems etc.
Strange. Bandwidth = signaling rate * width. This of course is raw
bandwidth prior to encoding, protocol, etc. overheads which will derate the
effective
At 10:00 PM 10/23/2006, Greg Lindahl wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 07:53:06AM -0500, Hubbell, Sean C
Contractor/Decibel wrote:
I currently have several applications that uses a legacy IPv4 protocol
and I use IPoIB to utilize my infiniband network which works great. I
have completed some
At 10:19 AM 10/23/2006, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting r. Sean Hubbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am looking at libsdp for the TCP funcationality and wanted to know if
libsdp supports UDP as well
AFAIK, SDP can only emulate TCP sockets.
SDP is defined to work with AF_INET applications. If
At 11:24 AM 10/13/2006, Sean Hefty wrote:
3. in req_handler() we follow the same steps as we have done without APM..
i.e. create qpairs, change qp state to RTR and then send REP.
however, when trying to change state to RTR usinb ib_modify_qp() I get
an error (-22).
two info: same code
At 02:46 AM 10/11/2006, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting r. David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
From: Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:05:04 +0200
So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear
At 10:24 AM 10/10/2006, Tom Tucker wrote:
Does anyone know what might happen if a device tries to bus master
bad_dma_address. Does it get a pci-abort, an NMI, a bus err interrupt, all
of the above?
It depends upon the platform. Some will enter a containment mode and, for
example, shutdown the
Off-line someone asked me to clarify my earlier e-mail. Given this
discussion continues, perhaps this might help explain the performance a
bit more. The Max Payload Size quoted here is what is typically
implemented on x86 chipsets though other chipsets may use a larger
value. From a pure
At 02:43 PM 10/2/2006, Roland Dreier wrote:
Robert Yes. 1250Mbytes/sec is what we expect. You say the 128
Robert value comes from the BIOS ? If so, we need to discuss this
Robert with our BIOS team to find out why they limit it to 128,
Robert perhaps it is a BIOS bug.
Yes, I
Silverstorm is executing a usage model that the IBTA used to develop the IB
protocols. What is the problem with that? If it works and integrates
into the stack, then this seems like an appropriate bit of functionality to
support. The fact that one can use a standard ULP to communicate to
At 08:56 AM 8/25/2006, Greg Lindahl wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at
10:13:01AM -0500, Tom Tucker wrote:
He does say this, but his analysis does not support this conclusion.
His
analysis revolves around MPI send/recv, not the MPI 2.0 get/put
services.
Nobody uses MPI put/get anyway, so leaving
At 10:14 AM 8/23/2006, Ralph Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 09:47
-0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting r. john t [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: basic IB doubt
Hi
I have a very basic doubt. Suppose Host A is doing RDMA
write (say 8
MB) to Host B.
At 02:58 PM 8/24/2006, Sean Hefty wrote:
We're trying to create
*inter-operable* hardware and
software in this community. So we follow the IB standard.
Atomic operations and RDD are optional, yet still part of the IB
standard. An
application that makes use of either of these isn't guaranteed to
At 11:55 AM 8/25/2006, Greg Lindahl wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at
10:00:50AM -0400, Thomas Bachman wrote:
Not that I have any stance on this issue, but is this is the text in
the
spec that is being debated?
(page 269, section 9.5, Transaction Ordering):
An application shall not depend
At 12:53 PM 8/25/2006, Talpey, Thomas wrote:
At 03:23 PM 8/25/2006, Greg
Lindahl wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 03:21:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I presume you meant invalidate the cache, not flush it, before
accessing DMA'ed
data.
Yes, this is what I meant. Sorry!
Flush (sync
At 10:45 AM 8/25/2006, Tom Tucker wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 12:51
-0400, Talpey, Thomas wrote:
At 12:40 PM 8/25/2006, Sean Hefty wrote:
Thomas How does an adapter guarantee
that no bridges or other
Thomas intervening devices reorder
their writes, or for that
Thomas matter flush them
At 09:50 AM 8/25/2006, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas How does an adapter guarantee that
no bridges or other
Thomas intervening devices reorder their
writes, or for that
Thomas matter flush them to memory at
all!?
That's a good point. The HCA would have to do a
Is the performance being measured on an identical topology and hardware
set as before? Multicast by its very nature is sensitive to
topology, hardware components used (buffer depth, latency, etc.) and
workload occurring within the fabric. Loss occurs as a function of
congestion or lack of
At 03:49 PM 7/12/2006, Fabian Tillier wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 7/12/06, Michael Krause [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:48 AM 7/12/2006, Jeff Broughton wrote:
Modifying the sockets API is
just defining yet another RDMA API, and we have
so many already
I disagree. This effort has distilled the API
At 12:59 AM 7/12/2006, Tziporet Koren wrote:
Scott Weitzenkamp (sweitzen)
wrote:
For SDP, I would like to see improved stability (maybe
you have this
in mind under beta quality), also how about AIO
support? The rest
of the list looks good.
Yes - beta quality means improved stability.
AIO
of experience
implementing Sockets and working with application developers.
Mike
-Jeff
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Michael
Krause
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 9:23 AM
To: Tziporet Koren; Scott Weitzenkamp (sweitzen)
Cc: OpenFabricsEWG; openib
Subject: Re
At 10:14 AM 6/23/2006, Grant Grundler wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at
04:04:31PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
I thought the posted write WILL eventually get to adapter
memory. Not
stall forever cached in a bridge. I'm wrong?
I'm not sure there is a theoretical upper bound
I'm not
As one of the authors of IB and iWARP, I can say that both Roland and
Todd's responses are correct and the intent of the specifications.
The number of outstanding RDMA Reads are bounded and that is communicated
during session establishment. The ULP can choose to be aware of
this requirement
At 10:44 AM 6/9/2006, Scott Weitzenkamp (sweitzen)
wrote:
Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C68BEC.6C768F57
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
While we're talking
about MTUs, is the IB MTU tunable in uDAPL and/or Intel MPI
Whether iWARP or IB, there is a fixed number of RDMA Requests allowed to
be outstanding at any given time. If one posts more RDMA Read
requests than the fixed number, the transmit queue is stalled. This
is documented in both technology specifications. It is something
that all ULP should be
High-level feedback:
- An IB fabric could be used for a single ULP and still require
QoS. The issue is how to differentiate flows on a given shared
element within the fabric.
- QoS controls must be dynamic. The document references initialization as
the time when decisions are made but obviously
At 10:42 AM 5/1/2006, Ranjit Pandit wrote:
On 5/1/06, Or Gerlitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you elaborate on each of the
features, specifically the following
points are of interest to us:
+1 so you running Oracle Loopback traffic over RDS sockets? if yes,
what
the issue here?
the openib CMA
Given this is an extension to Sockets, should it not also be reviewed by
the Sockets owners?
What about the API itself? Any plans to make this portable to other
OS / endnodes or have a spec and associated wire protocol that is
reviewed perhaps in the IETF so it is applicable to more than just
At 05:10 PM 3/20/2006, Fabian Tillier wrote:
On 3/20/06, Talpey, Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, this is a longer answer.
At 06:08 PM 3/20/2006, Fabian Tillier wrote:
As to using FMRs to create virtually contiguous regions, the
last data
I saw about this related to SRP (not on OpenIB),
At 03:31 AM 3/24/2006, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 12:34,
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting r. Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sean, just to wrap it
up, the API at the verbs layer will look
like the below, and then
ULPs just put the value they want in
At 04:30 PM 3/20/2006, Talpey, Thomas wrote:
At 06:00 PM 3/20/2006, Sean
Hefty wrote:
Can you provide more details on this statement? When are you
fencing the send
queue when using memory windows?
Infiniband 101, and VI before it. Memory windows fence later
operations
on the send queue until
At 09:43 AM 2/10/2006, Grant Grundler wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at
11:05:34AM -0500, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
Hi, Roland!
One issue we have with IPoIB is that IPoIB may cache a remote
node path
for a long time. Remote LID may get changed e.g. if the SM is
changed,
and IPoIB might lose
At 03:36 PM 2/8/2006, Arlin Davis wrote:
Roland Dreier wrote:
Michael So,
here we have a long discussion on attempting to
Michael perpetuate a concept that is not universal
across
Michael transports and was deemed to have minimal value
that most
Michael wanted to see removed from the
At 11:04 AM 2/8/2006, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting r. Steve Wise
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [openib-general] Re: [PATCH] [RFC] - example user
moderdmaping/pongprogram using CMA
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 19:10 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting r. Sean Hefty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 11:35 AM 2/8/2006, Steve Wise wrote:
I just read this section in the 1.2 version of the spec, and I
still
don't understand what the issue really is? 9.7.7.2 talks
about IBA
doing flow control based on the RECV WQEs posted. rping always
ensures
that there is a RECV posted before the
At 09:16 PM 2/6/2006, Sean Hefty wrote:
The requirement is to
provide an API that supports RDMA writes with immediate
data. A send that follows an RDMA write is not immediate data,
and the API
should not be constructed around trying to make it so.
To be clear, I believe that write with immediate
At 12:49 PM 11/14/2005, Nitin Hande wrote:
Michael Krause wrote:
At 01:01 PM 11/11/2005, Nitin
Hande wrote:
Michael Krause wrote:
At 10:28 AM 11/9/2005, Rick
Frank wrote:
Yes, the application is
responsible for detecting lost msgs at the application level - the
transport can not do this.
RDS
At 10:28 AM 11/9/2005, Rick Frank wrote:
Yes, the application is responsible for detecting lost msgs at the
application level - the transport can not do this.
RDS does not guarantee that a message
has been delivered to the application - just that once the transport has
accepted a msg it will
At 02:09 PM 11/9/2005, Greg Lindahl wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at
01:57:06PM -0800, Michael Krause wrote:
What you indicate above is that RDS
will implement a resync of the two sides of the association to
determine
what has been successfully sent.
More accurate to say that it could
At 10:48 AM 11/10/2005, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
Mike Krause wrote in response to Greg Lindahl:
If it is to
be reasonably robust, then RDS should be required to
support
the resync between the two sides of the communication. This
aligns
with the
stated objective of implementing reliability in
At 12:37 PM 11/8/2005, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 15:33,
Ranjit Pandit wrote:
Using APM is not useful because it doesn't provide failover across
HCA's.
Can't APM be made to work across HCAs ?
No. It requires state that is only within the HCA and there are
other aspects that
At 12:33 PM 11/8/2005, Ranjit Pandit wrote:
Mike wrote:
- RDS does not solve a set of failure models. For
example, if a RNIC / HCA
were to fail, then one cannot simply replay the operations on
another RNIC /
HCA without extracting state, etc. and providing some end-to-end
sync of
what was
At 11:42 AM 11/9/2005, Greg Lindahl wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at
01:08:13PM -0800, Michael Krause wrote:
If an application takes any action assuming that send complete
means
it is delivered, then it is subject to silent data
corruption.
Right. That's the same as pretty much all other
-
From: Michael Krause
To: Ranjit Pandit
Cc:
openib-general@openib.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [ANNOUNCE] Contribute
RDS(ReliableDatagramSockets) to OpenIB
At 12:33 PM 11/8/2005, Ranjit Pandit wrote:
Mike wrote:
- RDS does not solve
At 01:24 PM 11/9/2005, Greg Lindahl wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at
12:18:28PM -0800, Michael Krause wrote:
So, things like HCA failure are not transparent and one cannot
simply
replay the operations since you don't know what was really seen by
the
other side unless the application performs
Just to correct one comment:
A ULP written to TCP/IP can use RDMA transport without change. An
example is SDP not that the ULP must use what SDP uses. Also,
please keep in mind that SDP on iWARP uses the port mapper protocol to
obtain the IP address and port to target for the connection
At 12:50 PM 10/21/2005, Fab Tillier wrote:
From: James Lentini
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 12:38 PM
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Sean Hefty wrote:
sean version(8) | reserved(8) | src port (16)
version(1) | reserved(1)
| src port (2)
sean src ip (16)
sean
This is really an IBTA issue to resolve and to insure that backward
compatibility with existing applications is maintained. Hence, this
exercise of who is broken or not is inherently flawed in that one cannot
comprehend all implementations that may exist. Therefore, the spec should
use either a
At 10:41 PM 10/18/2005, Mohit Katiyar, Noida wrote:
Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C5D46F.B45AF930
Hi all,
Can anyone tell me are there any specific I/O controller for the
connection between the TCA and SCSI devices
These types of discussions should be taken up with IB technology / OEM
vendors directly as they have nothing to do with development.
Mike
At 06:28 AM 10/15/2005, Mohit Katiyar, Noida wrote:
Hi all,
Sorry previous mail got scrapped due to HTML pictures so now with
text
pictures
I just cant
At 03:14 PM 10/12/2005, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Sean
Hefty
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:36 PM
To: Michael Krause
Cc: openib-general@openib.org
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address
At 09:59 AM 10/12/2005, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Michael
Krause
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:24 AM
To: Hal Rosenstock; Sean Hefty
Cc: Openib
Subject: RE: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using
ARP
At 07
At 02:05 PM 10/10/2005, Roland Dreier wrote:
Roland
BTW, for INTx emulation on PCI Express, there are no
Roland physical interrupt lines -- interrupts are
asserted and
Roland deasserted with messages. So PCI
Express interrupts are
Roland unshared.
Michael They are messages upstream that any
At 01:09 PM 10/10/2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at
12:53:29PM -0700, Michael Krause wrote:
standards. There are also the new standard Sockets extension
API available
today that might be extended sometime in the future to include
explicit
which is never going to get
At 12:13 PM 10/10/2005, Fab Tillier wrote:
From: Sean Hefty
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:16 AM
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Maybe rdma_connection (these things encapsulate connectin
state)?
Or, rdma_sock or rdma_socket, since people are used to the fact
At 10:40 AM 10/10/2005, Sean Hefty wrote:
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
What about the case of iWARP
- IB ?
Crossing IB shouldn't matter. iWarp should simply cross the IB
subnet using IPoIB. You could build a gateway to make the transfer
across IB more efficient, but it's not required.
I don't
At 09:22 AM 10/10/2005, Roland Dreier wrote:
yipee Hi,
My setup is a 3GHz Xeon (x86_64) with a 2.6.13.2
yipee kernel. A Mellanox memfree PCIe ddr HCA is
connected. Why
yipee do I see IRQ sharing although I'm using
msi_x and PCIe?
yipee Doesn't IRQ sharing only happen on older non
PCIe
At 01:59 PM 10/10/2005, Sean Hefty wrote:
Michael Krause wrote:
What about the case of iWARP
- IB ?
Crossing IB shouldn't matter. iWarp should simply cross the IB
subnet using IPoIB. You could build a gateway to make the transfer
across IB more efficient, but it's not required.I don't
At 06:38 AM 9/30/2005, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roland
Dreier
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 6:50 PM
To: Sean Hefty
Cc: Openib
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using
At 06:24 AM 9/30/2005, Yaron Haviv wrote:
-Original
Message-
From: Roland Dreier
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:50 PM
To: Sean Hefty
Cc: Yaron Haviv; Openib
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using
ARP
I think the usage
At 03:33 PM 9/21/2005, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
I'm not sure I follow what a
completion channel is.
My understanding is that work completions are stored in
user-accessible memory (typically a ring buffer). This
enables fast-path reaping of work completions. The OS
has no involvement unless
At 05:30 PM 9/21/2005, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
On 9/21/05, Sean Hefty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Caitlin Bestler wrote:
That's certainly an acceptably low overhead for iWARP IHVs,
provided there are applications that want this control and
*not* also need even more IB-specific CM control.
At 07:46 AM 8/31/2005, James Lentini wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Roland
Dreier wrote:
I just committed this SRP fix, which should make sure we don't use
a
device after it's gone. And it actually simplifies the code a
teeny bit...
The device could still be used after it's gone. For example:
-
At 11:11 AM 8/19/2005, Roland Dreier wrote:
Arlin
Yes, this is certainly another option; albeit one that
Arlin requires more system resources. Why not take
full advantage
Arlin of the FD resource we already have? It's
your call, but
Arlin uDAPL and other multi-thread applications
could make
At 08:04 AM 8/19/2005, Yaron Haviv wrote:
-Original
Message-
From: Christoph Hellwig
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 10:22 AM
To: Roland Dreier
Cc: Yaron Haviv; Christoph Hellwig; Grant Grundler; open-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; openib-general@openib.org
Subject:
At 06:39 AM 7/13/2005, James Lentini wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, xg wang
wrote:
Frankly
speaking, I can not distinguish the function of SDP and DAPL. Since
Lustre is a file system, it runs on kernel. So I think maybe kDAPL is
better.
SDP stands for the Sockets Direct Protocol. The protocol is
At 11:18 AM 7/13/2005, James Lentini wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Michael
Krause wrote:
At 06:39 AM 7/13/2005, James
Lentini wrote:
kDAPL was designed specifically
for RDMA networks with lots of features that allow you to control how the
network is used. This is good if you are writing new code
At 06:37 AM 7/11/2005, James Lentini wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Michael
Krause wrote:
The intention was to allow one
to manage the fabric by having mapping functions from traditional IP
management applications to IB GID to minimize the amount of work to
enable IB within a solution.
I
At 04:20 PM 7/8/2005, Kevin Reilly wrote:
Mike,
Ideally your right the ULP shouldn't care what HCA it's
running on. There are some practical reasons why an ULP might want to
know the vendor and part number it was using like for debug or taking
advantage a perform nuance of a particular HCA.
At 02:00 PM 7/8/2005, Roland Dreier wrote:
Kevin Is
openIB going to do anything to enumerate the
Kevin vendor_id,vendor_part_id and hw_ver in a
common header
Kevin fille or is it the responsiblity of ULP
running ontop of
Kevin the lib to understand these values?
I don't have anything planned
/
plug-ins / etc. I do not want to get into a vision / marketing
debate - was just explaining why we created iSER instead of just
enhancing SRP.
Mike
Todd R.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Krause
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 12:28 PM
To: Ian Jiang; openib
At 10:49 AM 6/30/2005, Roland Dreier wrote:
Michael
Being the person who led the addressing definition for
Michael IB, I can state quite clearly that GID are
NOT IPv6
Michael addresses. They were intentionally
defined to have a
Michael similar look-n-feel since they were
derived in large
At 06:07 PM 7/4/2005, Ian Jiang wrote:
Hi!
I am new to the iSER.
On
https://openib.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=iSER, it is said
that iSER currently contains initiator only (no target). Will the target
come out later? How did they test the iSER initiator without a iSER
target?
Could you give
At 10:39 PM 6/29/2005, Bill Strahm wrote:
--
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:00:37 -0700
From: Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [openib-general] IP addressing on InfiniBand networks
To: Caitlin Bestler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Lentini, James [EMAIL
At 10:30 AM 6/24/2005, Roland Dreier wrote:
Thomas As
I said - I am not attached to ATS. I would welcome an
Thomas alternative.
Sure, understood. I'm suggesting a slight tweak to the IB wire
protocol. I don't think there's a difference in the security
provided, and carrying the peer address in
At 12:13 PM 6/3/2005, Sean Hefty wrote:
Fab Tillier wrote:
Ok, so this question is from a
noob, but here goes anyway. Why can't IPoIB
advertise a larger MTU than the UD MTU, and then just fragment large
IP
packets up if they need to go over the IB UD transport? Is there
any reason
this couldn't
At 09:28 AM 6/7/2005, Fab Tillier wrote:
From: Roland Dreier
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 8:38 AM
Michael Why not just use the IETF draft
for RC / UC based IP over
Michael IB and not worry about creating
something new?
I think we've come full circle. The
At 06:47 AM 5/28/2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, May 28, 2005 at
05:17:54AM -0700, Sukanta ganguly wrote:
That's a pretty bold statement. Linux grew up to be
popular via mass acceptance. Seems like that charter
has changed and a few have control over Linux and its
future. The My way
At 06:40 AM 5/27/2005, Sukanta ganguly wrote:
Venkata,
How will that work? If the RNIC offloads RDMA and
TCP completely from the Operating System and does not
share any state information then the application
running on the host will never be in the position to
utilize the socket interface to
At 09:29 AM 5/27/2005, Grant Grundler wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at
07:24:44AM -0700, Michael Krause wrote:
...
Again, Sockets is an application API and not how one communicates to
a TOE
or RDMA component.
Mike,
What address family is used to open a socket over iWARP? AF_INET?
Or something
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
