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 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! :)

Rossam.

 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 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 some basic performance tests I have done with it.
 
  It would be a really interesting value added feature for FreeBSD 5.x
  and could potentially open FBSD up even more to the cluster market
  which is somewhere its not as proliferated as linux.
 
  With the advent of firewire2  on the horizon it may be even more
  impressive.
 
  I believe there is even an Oracle product for linux which can cluster
  databases
  over firewire now.  [I don't know if its IP though]
 
 
  Dave
  On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:43 AM, Rossam Souza Silva wrote:
 
  
   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, UNIX is user friendly. It just
   happens
\\\'',) ^  to be very selective about who it decides to make friends
   with.
  \/  \(
  .\._/_)  Rossam Souza Silva ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
   ---
   --
  
  
   To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
 
 
  To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message





To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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 that nasty non-standard
Ethernet hardware now!

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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 and BSDs! :)

 Gee, well, I guess we can all get rid of that nasty non-standard
 Ethernet hardware now!

No one asks for removing, if we can have both.

Rossam.

 DES
 --
 Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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 some basic performance tests I have done with it.

It would be a really interesting value added feature for FreeBSD 5.x
and could potentially open FBSD up even more to the cluster market
which is somewhere its not as proliferated as linux.
With the advent of firewire2  on the horizon it may be even more  
impressive.

I believe there is even an Oracle product for linux which can cluster  
databases
over firewire now.  [I don't know if its IP though]

Dave
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:43 AM, Rossam Souza Silva wrote:
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, UNIX is user friendly. It just  
happens
 \\\'',) ^  to be very selective about who it decides to make friends  
with.
   \/  \(
   .\._/_)  Rossam Souza Silva ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- 
--

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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 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 some basic performance tests I have done with it.
 
 It would be a really interesting value added feature for FreeBSD 5.x
 and could potentially open FBSD up even more to the cluster market
 which is somewhere its not as proliferated as linux.
 
 With the advent of firewire2  on the horizon it may be even more  
 impressive.
 
 I believe there is even an Oracle product for linux which can cluster  
 databases
 over firewire now.  [I don't know if its IP though]
 
 
 Dave
 On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:43 AM, Rossam Souza Silva wrote:
 
 
  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, UNIX is user friendly. It just  
  happens
   \\\'',) ^  to be very selective about who it decides to make friends  
  with.
 \/  \(
 .\._/_)  Rossam Souza Silva ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  --- 
  --
 
 
  To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
 
 
 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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 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 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 some basic performance tests I have done with it.
It would be a really interesting value added feature for FreeBSD 5.x
and could potentially open FBSD up even more to the cluster market
which is somewhere its not as proliferated as linux.
With the advent of firewire2  on the horizon it may be even more
impressive.
I believe there is even an Oracle product for linux which can cluster
databases
over firewire now.  [I don't know if its IP though]
Dave
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:43 AM, Rossam Souza Silva wrote:
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, UNIX is user friendly. It  
just
happens
 \\\'',) ^  to be very selective about who it decides to make friends
with.
   \/  \(
   .\._/_)  Rossam Souza Silva ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
- 
--
--

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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 can get some use out of my camera after all.

Chris

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:21, David Leimbach wrote:
 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 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 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 some basic performance tests I have done with it.
 
  It would be a really interesting value added feature for FreeBSD 5.x
  and could potentially open FBSD up even more to the cluster market
  which is somewhere its not as proliferated as linux.
 
  With the advent of firewire2  on the horizon it may be even more
  impressive.
 
  I believe there is even an Oracle product for linux which can cluster
  databases
  over firewire now.  [I don't know if its IP though]
 
 
  Dave
  On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:43 AM, Rossam Souza Silva wrote:
 
 
  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, UNIX is user friendly. It  
  just
  happens
   \\\'',) ^  to be very selective about who it decides to make friends
  with.
 \/  \(
 .\._/_)  Rossam Souza Silva ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  - 
  --
  --
 
 
  To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
 
 
  To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
 
 
 
 
 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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, Christopher Fowler wrote:
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 get some use out of my camera after all.
Chris

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:21, David Leimbach wrote:
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 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 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 some basic performance tests I have done with it.
It would be a really interesting value added feature for FreeBSD 5.x
and could potentially open FBSD up even more to the cluster market
which is somewhere its not as proliferated as linux.
With the advent of firewire2  on the horizon it may be even more
impressive.
I believe there is even an Oracle product for linux which can  
cluster
databases
over firewire now.  [I don't know if its IP though]

Dave
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:43 AM, Rossam Souza Silva wrote:
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, UNIX is user friendly. It
just
happens
 \\\'',) ^  to be very selective about who it decides to make  
friends
with.
   \/  \(
   .\._/_)  Rossam Souza Silva ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- 
--
--
--

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


RE: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread Cagle, John (ISS-Houston)
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?

 -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 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

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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
over 1 Gb/sec (using ethernet-over-Myrinet) maxes its CPU out at
200Mb/sec, or less with IP over Firewire. (I'd report GigE numbers,
but I don't have a GigE switch or a decent enough cable to get a
host-host link at 1Gb/s).

Its possible that the Apple code just sucked, I don't know.  It used a
1500 byte mtu, for example.  I'd have thought you'd be able to have
much large mtus w/firewire.

If the Apple code is typical, then I think that unless you've got some
sort of alternate zero-copy protocol running over raw firewire, you'd
be better off running GigE, or even multiple 100Mb links.

Drew



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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 1U per node, use a
multi-port NIC.  I have a D-Link card that as 4 interfaces on one
flange.

If you are stuck to blade servers, I'm not sure what to do other than
place them all on a private back bone.  Then have one brain that could
be a gateway to them and the main network.

I would stay away from message passing over slow links.  You could use
the firewall for heartbeat.


On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:32, David Leimbach wrote:
 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, Christopher Fowler wrote:
 
  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 get some use out of my camera after all.
 
  Chris
 
  On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:21, David Leimbach wrote:
  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 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 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 some basic performance tests I have done with it.
 
  It would be a really interesting value added feature for FreeBSD 5.x
  and could potentially open FBSD up even more to the cluster market
  which is somewhere its not as proliferated as linux.
 
  With the advent of firewire2  on the horizon it may be even more
  impressive.
 
  I believe there is even an Oracle product for linux which can  
  cluster
  databases
  over firewire now.  [I don't know if its IP though]
 
 
  Dave
  On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:43 AM, Rossam Souza Silva wrote:
 
 
  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, UNIX is user friendly. It
  just
  happens
   \\\'',) ^  to be very selective about who it decides to make  
  friends
  with.
 \/  \(
 .\._/_)  Rossam Souza Silva ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  --- 
  --
  --
  --
 
 
  To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
 
 
  To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
 
 
 
 
  To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
 
 
 
 
 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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 OS X.  It's somewhat flaky though and you get unreliable  
 spikes
 in some basic performance tests I have done with it.
 
 It would be a really interesting value added feature for FreeBSD 5.x
 and could potentially open FBSD up even more to the cluster market
 which is somewhere its not as proliferated as linux.
 
 With the advent of firewire2  on the horizon it may be even more  
 impressive.

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.

W/

-- 
|   / o / /_  _ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|/|/ / / /(  (_)  Bulte 

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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 - firewire hd - desktop PC and used the drive on
one machine and setup a network between the two of them :)

fwcontrol -t shows bus topology.

-- 
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au
The nice thing about standards is that there
are so many of them to choose from.
  -- Andrew Tanenbaum
GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140  AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


Re: IP over IEEE1394?

2003-03-05 Thread David Leimbach
Well there are firewire hubs and the machines I typically do this on are
Macs which generally have 2 firewire ports... you can make a small ring
network that way.
Dave
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 08:36 AM, 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?
-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 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


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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 public IP.
However, The overhead could get you. I'm not sure you want to go down
the writer of creating another interface.  Maybe you could use the SLIP
interface and capture that IP stuff and send across.


On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:32, David Leimbach wrote:
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, Christopher Fowler wrote:
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 get some use out of my camera after all.
Chris

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:21, David Leimbach wrote:
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  
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 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 some basic performance tests I have done with it.

It would be a really interesting value added feature for FreeBSD  
5.x
and could potentially open FBSD up even more to the cluster  
market
which is somewhere its not as proliferated as linux.

With the advent of firewire2  on the horizon it may be even more
impressive.
I believe there is even an Oracle product for linux which can
cluster
databases
over firewire now.  [I don't know if its IP though]
Dave
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:43 AM, Rossam Souza Silva  
wrote:

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, UNIX is user friendly. It
just
happens
 \\\'',) ^  to be very selective about who it decides to make
friends
with.
   \/  \(
   .\._/_)  Rossam Souza Silva ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
- 
--
--
--
--

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message






To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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 thousands of dollars to purchase
such a good transport sure :).
Personally I don't think people should purchase clusters but they should
purchase cluster time on a well configured server like a utility.
IBM seems to believe this is true also.

I would stay away from message passing over slow links.  You could use
the firewall for heartbeat.
People do clustering with fast ethernet all the time. ... I know  
because we sell
a lot of it where I work :).  Gigabit ethernet is better but switches  
are costly.

Dave

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:32, David Leimbach wrote:
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, Christopher Fowler wrote:
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 get some use out of my camera after all.
Chris

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:21, David Leimbach wrote:
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  
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 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 some basic performance tests I have done with it.

It would be a really interesting value added feature for FreeBSD  
5.x
and could potentially open FBSD up even more to the cluster  
market
which is somewhere its not as proliferated as linux.

With the advent of firewire2  on the horizon it may be even more
impressive.
I believe there is even an Oracle product for linux which can
cluster
databases
over firewire now.  [I don't know if its IP though]
Dave
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:43 AM, Rossam Souza Silva  
wrote:

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, UNIX is user friendly. It
just
happens
 \\\'',) ^  to be very selective about who it decides to make
friends
with.
   \/  \(
   .\._/_)  Rossam Souza Silva ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
- 
--
--
--
--

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message


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 
important
as some people would like you to believe either.  A well written MPI 
library
 [and MPI application] allows overlap of communication and computation
that improves the overall wall clock time of the job... which is the 
ultimate goal.

Get it done correctly and get it done ASAP! :)

but that's WY offtopic now :)

Dave

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message