Subject: Fwd: [rdma] RE: [Tsvwg] RDMA over IP BOF

From: allyn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:57:26 -0800

Doug, comment below. Also, let's move the discussion to  rdma mailing list -
thanks,
Allyn

[email-masked]
>X-eGroups-Return: 
>sentto-2264269-862-1015918233-allyn=[email-masked]
>X-Sender: [email-masked]
>X-Apparently-To: [email-masked]
>X-Sent: 12 Mar 2002 07:30:31 GMT
>To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
>Importance: Normal
>From: "Douglas Otis" <[email-masked]>
>X-Yahoo-Profile: doug_otis
>Mailing-List: list [email-masked]; contact [email-masked]
>Delivered-To: mailing list [email-masked]
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email-masked]>
>Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:34:20 -0800
>Subject: [rdma] RE: [Tsvwg] RDMA over IP BOF
>
>Allyn,
>
>Although RDMA provides a solution for clustered environments, a direct data
>placement layer as defined in the SCTP-DDP draft accomplishes greater
>overhead reductions while remaining viable with higher latency using
>traditional protocols.  Such a layer can enable RDMA built upon this simpler
>mechanism.  The problem statement and the charter proposal does not consider
>this layering however.

This was intentional, as layering seems something for the working group to 
come to agreement on, rather than something to be determined a priori in 
the charter. And the  problem is statement attempted just to specify the 
problem, though certainly a solution direction *crept* in --

>As a monolithic layer, RDMA is problematic for many
>applications with its local memory access arbitration and tokenizing through
>RDMA networking services.  If RDMA is placed entirely within an adapter,
>then I/O portions of the system become a bottleneck as this element offers
>less bandwidth than the CPU/Memory interface.  Rather than a general, a
>specific highly complex and stateful solution is terminated within the
>adapter.  Can you see an advantage in establishing a direct data placement
>layer independent of RDMA constraints?  The rules for this layer could be
>made compatible with RDMA as a superset.  There are already VI/TCP solutions
>where the missing aspect is DDP and not RDMA.

>Doug
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> > allyn
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 7:16 PM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; allyn romanow; stephen Bailey
> > Subject: [Tsvwg] RDMA over IP BOF
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> > We encourage people interested to attend the (second) BOF on RDMA
> > over IP, Tuesday March 19, 13:00-14:00. The following problem
> > statement draft will be discussed at the BOF.
> >
> >
>http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-romanow-rdma-over-ip-problem-st
>atement-00.txt
>
>In addition a proposed charter will be discussed
>
>    http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/~steph/roi-proposed-charter-00.txt
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
>Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
>Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
>Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/nuyOHD/7.PDAA/yigFAA/W6uqlB/TM
>---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[email-masked]
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/