Or Gerlitz wrote:
Did anyone at Cisco, Qlogic, Mellanox, Voltaire noticed the phenomena
reported by Shirley on their testing?
Or.
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 09:00 -0800, Sean Hefty wrote:
Saying all that, I don't think we want to have --any RNR retries--, as
for retries, I am open to hear what others think.
I'm really not all that familiar with ipoib protocol, but if it's being
implemented over an RC connection, then adding an RNR retry seems to make sense
to me. I believe using UC is better, but if it's over RC, I don't know that we
want to take the hit of tearing down and re-establishing the connection just
because we have a fast sender. (This is just an opinion based on no fact
whatsoever.)
- Sean
Did anyone ever run IPoIB-CM (multiple sockets and multiple connections)
between ipath and mthca or connectX and mthca? I guess there might be a
similar issue there, mismatched send rates.
thanks
Shirley
I saw cases where a fast sender consumed the TX ring and I solved this by
increasing the size of the tx queue. I will try to connect ConnectX with Sinai
and see if there are such issues.
_______________________________________________
ewg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
