On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 08:18:43PM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: > Further, its not even needed for IB, just iWARP. That's an unnecessary > admin pain IMO.
IB already completely seperates from the host stack, that is why it isn't effected by this problem. It has both a seperate port numbering space (in rdma cm) and a separate addressing space (GID). The entire problem with iWARP is that it is trying to not be seperate, unlike IB. So.. simple answer: use a seperate IP, or use a seperate port space (ie don't use the TCP protocol number). ROCEE won't have this problem either.. > iWARP should and can easily co-exist with the host TCP by sharing > the port space. But, as Roland stated already, maybe the only way > forward it to get end-user pressure applied at the appropriate > places! :) *shrug* This isn't going to happen until netdev decides to design-in statefull offload. I doubt that is going to happen any time soon. I've already seen Linux max out 40GE on benchmarks, so it is hard to see what the driver would be. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
