Re: IP over IEEE1394?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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
IP over IEEE1394?
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
