Catlin wrote, >The sourceforge DAPL requires extensive parallel data between >the DAPL layer and the verbs layer, that has a measurable impact >on system performance. RNIC-PI not only avoids requiring either >IB HCAs to pretend to be iWARP RNICs, or iWARP RNICs to pretend >to be IB HCAs, it also provides features such as kernel mode >completions and 'os_data' markers that eliminate the need for >parallel DAPl/verbs data structures.
>Once this lowest-possible-RDMA-API is defined it will make it >possible for *most* applications to work with only transport >neutral fields and enums, and virtually all applications to >do so for their non-error paths. But such an API is not a few >minor tweaks away from the Gen2 verbs. Trying to sweep the >differences under the rug in a "low level API" is what >produces truly ugly code. The IB companies are not going to throw away a working implementation and move to RNIC-PI, but people have already said that they are willing to work with the iWarp community to add support and do what is right for Linux. However, as Roland said earlier, >Without seeing some real patches from the iWARP side, it's hard for me >to see any value in continuing to participate in this debate. > - R. woody _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
