Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-21 Thread Rossam Souza Silva
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 Mac's

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-21 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
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 rid of

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-21 Thread Rossam Souza Silva
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, Win Boxes

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread David Leimbach
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

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread Christopher Fowler
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

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread David Leimbach
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

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread Christopher Fowler
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

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread David Leimbach
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,

RE: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread Cagle, John (ISS-Houston)
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 useful for my line of work which is parallel computing

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread Andrew Gallatin
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 well

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread Christopher Fowler
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. Im nut sure what type of clusters you are building but I would say use multiple interfaces. If you are stuck with

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread Wilko Bulte
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 Mac

RE: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread Daniel O'Connor
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 -

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread David Leimbach
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 guess I

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread David Leimbach
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

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread David Leimbach
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

Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread David Leimbach
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