Moiz, Dave,
My previous comments may be more of an insight into me than LNET :) the
concept of getting LNET more widely adopted certainly has support within
CFS.
> We could possibly make a case to have a enterprise fork that
> is somewhere in the middle of Portals and LNET.
I'd push LNET itself rather than any derivative if we're going to head in
this direction.
> If we can
> make a case that this truly provides higher throughput/lower
> latency than IPoIB or SDP. Eric/Peter, do you guys have any
> measurements that may substantiate this performance assumption?
Performance comparisons are fraught with danger viz.
hardware/firmware/software revisions. You really have to run dedicated
tests on the same hardware before you can compare with confidence.
One thing I haven't mentioned is that LNET has both kernel and userspace
implementations. These share the bulk of the network-independent code, but
the LND implementations are not shared. Currently we only support TCP/IP
and the native Cray XT3 network in userspace. It would be quite easy to add
a system call interface to export the kernel LNET API to userspace, but
dedicated userspace LND versions would be required to deliver the lowest
latency you'd expect from OS bypass.
Cheers,
Eric
---------------------------------------------------
|Eric Barton Barton Software |
|9 York Gardens Tel: +44 (117) 330 1575 |
|Clifton Mobile: +44 (7909) 680 356 |
|Bristol BS8 4LL Fax: call first |
|United Kingdom E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
---------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Lustre-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
