> Putting a side for a moment the detailed discussion we've started and
> looking on the concluding remarks you have made, I wasn't sure to
> follow: if DCB isn't available (even from a silly reason of hw
> supporting pfc but patches not being pushed to the kernel...) what you
> think would
Liran Liss wrote:
I second...
fair-enough, so now (A) everyone agrees that DCB is good for IBoE and
(B) mlx4 supports pfc, any reason not to push the pfc patches into the
kernel and have mlx4_en comply with the mainline dcbnl code?
The only way an end-node can cause congestion is if its int
Roland Dreier wrote:
Sure, DCB is very useful, in many environments. And maybe even a requirement
sometimes. I'm simply trying to say that IBoE with classical ethernet is at
least as useful as standard IB in many cases
Roland, Paul,
Putting a side for a moment the detailed discussion we've s
Gerlitz; Liran Liss; Yevgeny Petrilin; Richard Frank; Sean Hefty;
Linux RDMA list; Paul Grun
Subject: Re: RDMAoE / lossless Ethernet (ewg: SC'09 BOF - Meeting notes)
> To start with, no matter how many data VLs are used (e.g one), all
the > crucial management traffic (SMPs) go o
> To start with, no matter how many data VLs are used (e.g one), all the
> crucial management traffic (SMPs) go on VL15 which is on the one hand
> lossy and on the other hand not subject to congestion when other VLs
> are. Now how would you manage your Cisco switch --remotely-- on a
> globall
r Gerlitz
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 2:18 PM
To: Paul Grun
Cc: Roland Dreier; Or Gerlitz; Liran Liss; Yevgeny Petrilin; Richard Frank;
Sean Hefty; Linux RDMA list
Subject: Re: RDMAoE / lossless Ethernet (ewg: SC'09 BOF - Meeting notes)
Paul Grun wrote:
> there doesn't appear t
Paul Grun wrote:
> there doesn't appear to be an argument in favor of requiring DCB with RoCEE
Interesting, the ofa server is down now, so I don't have access to ofa
IBoE materials, from my memory I recall that in ALL of them you have
made the IBoE/CEE bundling very clear & evident, e.g this IBT
Roland Dreier wrote:
> I agree that implementing DCB is important for IBoE, but why do you say
> that a classical ethernet fabric with global pause isn't usable? That
> should be roughly equivalent to an IB fabric that uses only a single VL,
> which is the case for many production IB fabrics.
T
> Liran, I would say that OTOH global pause isn't the way to go and OTHO
> IB RC functions quite bad when many packets are lost. As such RDMAoE
> without PFC and mapping priorities into TCs (the Ethernet VLs) isn't
> really for production, for any non trivial environment involving more
> then
Liran Liss wrote:
>> all the rdmaoe materials saying the lossless traffic class is a
must, are you saying that this works well also >> without it? then
why from architect point of view you have posed this requirement?
lossless traffic can be achieved today using global pause, for
example.
10 matches
Mail list logo
