FNN vs GigabitEther & Myrinet
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Mark Hahn hahn at physics.mcmaster.caThu Oct 25 09:50:03 PDT 2001
- Previous message: FNN vs GigabitEther & Myrinet
- Next message: FNN vs GigabitEther & Myrinet
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> However, IMHO doing this in Linux at the moment is not future-proof; apart > from the ever changing VM subsystem, some people favour iovecs to do > kernel-userland data passing; OTOH when the zero-copy network changes were > introduced (around 2.4.3 or so), there were discussions about using iovecs > - some networking guys said that they are too complex and time-consuming > to set up and use and so they introduced yet another mechanism which is > now specific to networking... I think this is a bit distorted (and seemingly reactionary). my impression from monitoring linux-kernel is that zero-copy stuff was originally done by people who wanted to spew large chunks of databases onto disk. since disks are pathetically slow, and their data is huge, they didn't mind doing things like having huge, fixed-size vectors of the pages to be operated upon. disk IO is also highly constrained in its alignment, etc. these factors were too specialized to reasonably apply to zero-copy networking. for 2.5, expect a modestly modified version of the networking zero-copy stuff to replace the old disk-oriented stuff. regards, mark hahn.
- Previous message: FNN vs GigabitEther & Myrinet
- Next message: FNN vs GigabitEther & Myrinet
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
