On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Bernard King-Smith wrote:
> Grant Grundler wrote:
> > Grant> My guess is it's an easier problem to fix SDP than reducing TCP/IP
> > Grant> cache/CPU foot print. I realize only a subset of apps can (or will
> > Grant> try to) use SDP because of setup/config issues. I still b
Grant Grundler wrote:
> Grant> My guess is it's an easier problem to fix SDP than reducing TCP/IP
> Grant> cache/CPU foot print. I realize only a subset of apps can (or will
> Grant> try to) use SDP because of setup/config issues. I still believe
SDP
> Grant> is useful to a majority of apps withou
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 09:03:29PM -0400, Bernard King-Smith wrote:
> Grant> My guess is it's an easier problem to fix SDP than reducing TCP/IP
> Grant> cache/CPU foot print. I realize only a subset of apps can (or will
> Grant> try to) use SDP because of setup/config issues. I still believe SDP
>
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 21:03, Bernard King-Smith wrote:
> Grant Grundler wrote:
>
> > Currently we only get 40% of the link bandwidth compared to
> > 85% for 10 GigE. (Yes I know the cost differences which favor IB ).
>
> Grant> 10gige is getting 85% without TOE?
> Grant> Or are they distributing
Grant Grundler wrote:
> Currently we only get 40% of the link bandwidth compared to
> 85% for 10 GigE. (Yes I know the cost differences which favor IB ).
Grant> 10gige is getting 85% without TOE?
Grant> Or are they distributing event handling across several CPUs?
On 10 GigE they are using large
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 03:10:29PM -0400, Bernard King-Smith wrote:
> Grant> I'm expect splitting the RX/TX completions would achieve something
> Grant> similar since we are just "slicing" the same problem from a
> different
> Grant> angle. Apps typically do both RX and TX and will be running on o
