Yes, this is the case.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Caitlin Bestler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 1:48 PM
Subject: RE: [openib-general] [ANNOUNCE] Contribute RDS
(ReliableDatagramSockets) to OpenIB
Mike Krause wrote in response to Greg Lindahl:
If it is to be reasonably robust, then RDS should be required to
support
the resync between the two sides of the communication. This aligns
with the
stated objective of implementing reliability in one location in
software and
one location in hardware. Without such resync being required in the
ULP,
then one ends up with a ULP that falls shorts of its stated objectives
and
pushes complexity back up to the application which is where the
advocates
have stated it is too complex or expensive to get it correct.
This sort of message service, by the way, has a long
history in distributed computing.
Yep.
I haven't reread all of RDS fine print to double-check this, but my
impression is that RDS semantics exactly match the subset of MPI
point-to-point communications where the receiving rank is required
to have pre-posted buffers before the send is allowed.
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
