I agree that we should have the event in early FEB that most people can attend (week of the 6th is OK, although it stinks for Superbowl fans...:) ).
I see significant updates, even from our last event at the end of AUG, on all fronts: Windows (MemFree, SDP, etc.), Linux (Updates from distros, stack updates), Storage (SRP, iSER/NFSoRDMA over OpenIB directly), Virtualization, MPI, RDS, discussions about QoS, management, etc.
Comments from the last event that many wanted to attend many sessions that were concurrent as we had a windows/linux/applications session all running together. The agenda will have to allow flexibility so folks can attend both while not taking too much of people's time. Maybe run the Windows and Linux together one day and applications on another day because it seemed everyone wanted to get there.
It will be up to the organizers and presenters to propose an agenda that is "fresh" and reduce the number of repeat slides from previous conferences. I do see the developer community growing, and as a result, some first time attendees will be seeing some info for the first time so a minimal amount of overlap for continuity isn't going to kill anyone.
Regards,
THAD
=======================================================
Thad Omura - Vice President of Product Marketing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mellanox Technologies, 2900 Stender Way, Santa Clara CA 95054
Work: 408-916-0020 Mobile: 408-750-6236 Skype: tomura74
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Boas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:55 AM
To: Roland Dreier
Cc: Henry Brandt; Peter Haas; Head Bubba; Tziporet Koren; Peter Krey (JP Morgan) (E-mail); [email protected]; Tim Lyons (Morgan Stanley) (E-mail); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Openib-promoters] Re: [openib-general] Next workshop dates? Ideas for agenda???
Roland,
These are all excellent perspectives, I hope others will respond with
their view points.
Certainly repeating what we have heard already is not a good use of
anyone's time or money but I'm under the impression that we will have
made some progress toward what we want to work on next as a result of
PathForward Phase 2, input from Tom Tucker and others on OpenIB iWARP
integration and the HSIR meeting in NYC tomorrow.
With respect to "release" of OpenIB rel 1.0, did Doug Ledford
effectively do that a week or two ago?
I think those of us ( including me) who originally thought OpenIB was
actually going be an organization that released and supported code
(like RedHat, say) had got it wrong. Now I believe that when a Linux
distribution, an IB company or a Tier One OEM decides that is a
version of the code that they will support, then that is a "release".
OpenIB may be best utilized to try to achieve some consistency in
timeframe and content amongst those who wish to "release and support"
the code???
Bill.
At 09:39 AM 12/12/2005, Roland Dreier wrote:
> Bill> I think, subject to others input, it'll be focused on
> Bill> wrapping up rel 1.0 of OpenIB, discussing what the
> Bill> developers are going to focus on next and validating the
> Bill> strategy for RDMA over Ethernet integration at the verbs
> Bill> level to lay the foundation for one, consistent RDMA
> Bill> structure in Linux, if possible.
>
>I'm not sure I see the point in dragging everyone together in early
>February. With the holidays coming, realistically we only have maybe
>5 weeks to prepare a conference agenda, and I don't see that as being
>enough time to set up a productive meeting.
>
>In particular:
>
> * wrapping up rel 1.0 -- the release process for a "1.0" release has
> not even started. About all we could hope to accomplish would be
> to pick a release manager and tell that person to go start driving
> a release, and I don't see that as a good use of face-to-face
> time. It would be much better to pick someone to drive the release
> and then give the release manager time to start putting the release
> together before getting together, so that we have some idea of what
> the real issues that need to be hashed out in person are.
>
> * iWARP integration -- again, not enough discussion has taken place
> in advance. Until the community has a chance to really study the
> proposed changes and figure out what the real difficult issues that
> need to be sorted out in person are, again it's a waste of time to
> meet in person.
>
> * discuss developers next steps -- perhaps I'm pessimistic but I
> think we'll just get the same talks we've already seen twice before
> at Sonoma and IDF.
>
>Sonoma is a short trip for me but given the number of people that will
>have to come from the East coast and Israel, I think we should think
>hard about whether this conference is the best use of our time.
>
> - R.
>_______________________________________________
>openib-promoters mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-promoters
Bill Boas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICCD LLNL, B-453, R-2018 Wk: 925-422-4110
7000 East Ave, L-555 Cell: 925-337-2224
Livermore, CA 94551 Pgr: 877-203-2248
_______________________________________________
openib-promoters mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-promoters
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
