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.
Donald Becker becker at scyld.comThu Oct 25 11:30:03 PDT 2001
- Previous message: FNN vs GigabitEther & Myrinet
- Next message: FNN vs GigabitEther & Myrinet
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Bogdan Costescu wrote: > On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Greg Lindahl wrote: > > One big problem with both the GAMMA and MVIA projects is that > > originally, neither was doing any kind of error correction, simply > > telling the application "whoops! there's a problem." It seems that every networking project, including most of the commercial ones, initially assume that errors will not occur. Adding error detection and recovery typically more than doubles the latency and overhead. > Why don't they get some support from the big guys ? For example, I > always wondered after Scyld announced its distribution if they are going > to include some kind of low-latency package, be it GAMMA, MVIA or > something else... Scyld certainly has the knowledge (but I don't know > about resources) to make it happen. The network device drivers we've written cover over 95% of the commodity market. Scyld is perhaps uniquely qualified to cause the something like GAMMA to be widely adopted -- we could put the proper hooks into the drivers. But that's a large effort that would be a resource and financial drain, without any associated revenue. > 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 The VM subsystem changes alone are a huge problem. The VM design has been replaced three times since the beginning of the year, and the current implementation continues to be reworked with three kernel releases in the past three weeks. > 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... Yes. The "zero-copy" networking changes were dropped in the supposedly-stable 2.4.3 kernel. I'm not opposed to those changes, but the decision process that allowed the interface change to go in with little discussion or notice means that any OS-bypass implementation must have substantial resources that have a full-time focus on updates. Donald Becker becker at scyld.com Scyld Computing Corporation http://www.scyld.com 410 Severn Ave. Suite 210 Second Generation Beowulf Clusters Annapolis MD 21403 410-990-9993
- 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
