Why do you feel that this model is necessary? Can you tune the bandwidth
of the individual links in your model? To me it just seems that you're
making your model overly complicated if you're making it deal with link
bandwidth.
You may treat the EtherSwitch as a general EtherLink.
The EtherSwitch has N Interfaces and N*(N-1) Links,
when N=2, it has 2 Interfaces and 2 Links, which is the
same model as EtherLink. (EtherSwitch also has inner class
Interface and Link, as shown in my previous email)
I have tested my EtherSwitch model in M5 in the case N=2,
it works well.
Xin
---- Original message ----
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 00:28:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Nathan Binkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [m5-users] issues on switch model for cluster
To: M5 users mailing list <m5-users@m5sim.org>
Actually, the EtherLink model can be completely replaced
by the EtherSwitch model.
You can do that, but you probably shouldn't. The EtherLink itself is what
manages the bandwidth of the links. The switch however will have some
sort of internal bandwidth that is far higher than individual link. If
you don't have the links, you're going to get the bandwidth wrong unless
you more or less implement the link in the interface.
Nate
_______________________________________________
m5-users mailing list
m5-users@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
_______________________________________________
m5-users mailing list
m5-users@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
_______________________________________________
m5-users mailing list
m5-users@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
