On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Rossam Souza Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hi, I don't know about the Mac's implementation, but yes, Windows has IP
> > over Firewire, like NetBSD. The good reason for IP over Firewire:
> > because it's a standard, you can connect Macs, Wi
Rossam Souza Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, I don't know about the Mac's implementation, but yes, Windows has IP
> over Firewire, like NetBSD. The good reason for IP over Firewire:
> because it's a standard, you can connect Macs, Win Boxes and BSDs! :)
Gee, well, I guess we can all get ri
On 21 Mar 2003, Chris Fowler wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand the motivations of running IP over firewire
> vs. ethernet. Sure I think its cool but will the speed be there with
> firewire2? On Windows, It is P-t-P is it not? I would prefer a real
> live network.
Hi, I don't know about the Ma
The interconnect is just 10% of the whole cluster story. Firewire
is one possibility, but Fibrechannel you could do today if you wanted
to. We have Fibrechannel support in the Qlogic isp(4) driver (thanks
Matt!) today.
Yeah... if you are lucky 10% :). In fact latency in messages isn't as
importa
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 10:13 AM, Christopher Fowler wrote:
If toy are using PVM or similar technologies, would'nt the best route
to
be to pick a transport that is the fastest. Last thing you want is
messages to be bogged down in transport.
Assuming you can afford the hundreds of thous
I hadn't thought of this Interesting :)
Dave
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 08:41 AM, Christopher Fowler wrote:
You can run IP via PPP. PPPD is used all the time for VPN. I've got 2
networks that are combined via PPPD over a tunnel because they are both
on private networks and have only 1 p
uster of more than 2
nodes? Or are you thinking of using multiple firewire interfaces per
node?
-Original Message-
From: David Leimbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 8:32 AM
To: Christopher Fowler
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP over IEEE1394?
True... I gu
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 01:06, Cagle, John (ISS-Houston) wrote:
> Wouldn't you need a firewire switch to do a cluster of more than 2
> nodes? Or are you thinking of using multiple firewire interfaces per
> node?
Firewire supports daisy chaining devices, and multiple masters.
I have done laptop ->
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:25:20AM -0600, David Leimbach wrote:
> Interesting... I didn't even know we had Ethernet over firewire :).
>
> Mac OS X and Windows XP both have IP over firewire either working or
> in the works and somewhat usable. The only one I can claim any
> experience
> with is
If toy are using PVM or similar technologies, would'nt the best route to
be to pick a transport that is the fastest. Last thing you want is
messages to be bogged down in transport.
I"m nut sure what type of clusters you are building but I would say use
multiple interfaces. If you are stuck with
David Leimbach writes:
> True... I guess I didn't state my case clearly enough that I think IP
> over firewire
> is in itself a good thing for clusters.
>From my experience with the Apple IP over Firewire, it seems slow, and
very high overhead. A dual 800MHz G4 host which can transmit at we
You can run IP via PPP. PPPD is used all the time for VPN. I've got 2
networks that are combined via PPPD over a tunnel because they are both
on private networks and have only 1 public IP.
However, The overhead could get you. I'm not sure you want to go down
the writer of creating another interf
opher Fowler
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IP over IEEE1394?
>
>
> True... I guess I didn't state my case clearly enough that I
> think IP
> over firewire
> is in itself a good thing for clusters.
>
> ppp connections with it are fine too but not very u
True... I guess I didn't state my case clearly enough that I think IP
over firewire
is in itself a good thing for clusters.
ppp connections with it are fine too but not very useful for my line of
work
which is parallel computing middleware :)
Dave
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 08:30 AM, Chr
The beauty of ppp is that you have support in the kernel to do it.
Else, you are stuck to writing some type of interface driver for the
kernel. In the short term, this may not be a workable solution.
On a side note,
I read an article on /. about using firewire + MinDV for backup. I
guess I can
Yeah... point to point connections are interesting and powerful but IP
would
be better if we could get it.
I wish I knew more about how to implement it. :)
Dave
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 08:23 AM, Christopher Fowler wrote:
This may not be a workable solution, but if you can get 2 programs
This may not be a workable solution, but if you can get 2 programs to
send data across the firewire to one another, you could use pppd through
that tunnel.
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 08:25, David Leimbach wrote:
> Interesting... I didn't even know we had Ethernet over firewire :).
>
> Mac OS X and
Interesting... I didn't even know we had Ethernet over firewire :).
Mac OS X and Windows XP both have IP over firewire either working or
in the works and somewhat usable. The only one I can claim any
experience
with is Mac OS X. It's somewhat flaky though and you get unreliable
spikes
in som
Hi, there is some plan to port NetBSD's implementation of IP over
Firewire? I know, we have "Ethernet over Firewire", but like the Linux
one, isn't a standard...
Just curious.
--
(_ ) "Contrary to popular belief, U
19 matches
Mail list logo
