My switch model is much like EtherLink model, the bandwidth
(rate) is a parameter used to create switch model, as it is
used in EtherLink.
Is the bandwidth managed for the whole switch or for each link or both?
If it's not both, then you're not actually implementing anything
resembling a real switch. If the bandwidth is for just the links, then
you're close, but you'd be doing some sort of infinite rate internally
which isn't what you'd see on a cluster (but it's probably close enough).
If the bandwidth is for the whole switch, then you're just implementing a
hub. Given that you don't even need to implement the EtherLink, why are
you so resistant to using it?
I feel my switch model is more easily implemented.
I'd say it's barely easier. If at all. All you need to do if you don't
know a mac address is send the packet out on all ports and then when you
see a packet come in on a port you record the source mac address in an stl
hash_map. You're also not going to succeed if you don't have broadcast
capability because I guarantee that you will see broadcase packets sent
out.
I guess I was hoping that you'd implement a real switch model and
contribute it so others can use it, but if you're planning on doing it
your way, we can't really accept it without fixing it.
Nate
_______________________________________________
m5-users mailing list
m5-users@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
