Karol,We (the folks at UTK) implemented a SCTP BTL. It's not yet in the trunk, but it will get there shortly. Instead of starting from scratch, it might be a good idea to start directly from there.
To answer your question, the TCP BTL use a copy of the original iovec. After each write, this copy is modified in order to describe the next operation (i.e. some of the iovec removed and some pointers modified based on the return value of the write function).
george. On Jun 26, 2007, at 2:15 PM, Karol Mroz wrote:
Hello... I'm a student at the University of British Columbia working oncreating an SCTP BTL for Open MPI. I have a simple implementation working that uses SCTPs one-to-one style sockets for sending messages.The same writev()/readv() calls that are used in the TCP BTL are used inthis new BTL. The next step is to allow large messages (300K +) to be sent over the SCTP socket. Right now, I'm fragmenting the iovec pointing to themessage at the BTL level. Repeated calls to writev() are then made, withthe first call sending header information and a part of the message, followed by sends of nothing but message data.My concern is that if the send is interrupted partly through the messageand then resumed, it will attempt to resend the vector containing the message data from the beginning as mca_btl_sctp_frag_t pointer is only aware of the original, un-fragmented iovec. I'm wondering if extending the array of iovec structures contained within the frag pointer to contain the properly fragmented message would cause havoc on themiddleware. Currently the array is of size 5 (as is the case for the TCP BTL). Would extending this beyond 5 to allow for proper book keeping inthe event of an interrupted send create problems? Any ideas on this matter would be greatly appreciated. -- Karol Mroz km...@cs.ubc.ca _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
