Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
Sean,
IB aside,
it looks like an ULP which is capable of being both RDMA aware and RDMA
not-aware,
like iSER and iSCSI, NFS-RDMA and NFS, SDP and sockets,
will be treated as two separete ULPs.
Each has its own IP address, since there is a different IP address for
iWARP
port and "regular" Ethernet port. So it falls on the users of ULPs to
"handle" it
via DNS or some other services.
Is this "acceptable" to users? I doubt it.
Recall that ULPs are going in opposite directions by having a different
port number for RDMA aware and RDMA unaware versions of the ULP.
This way, ULP "connection manager" handles RDMA-ness under the covers,
while users plug an IP address for a server to connect to.
Thanks,
NOTE: iSCSI/iSER over iWARP won't work with the current Linux RDMA/Verbs
anyway due to the requirement that the login connection be migrated into
RDMA mode. That's a separate issue. Currently there is not even a way
to setup an RDMA connection in streaming mode, then allow streaming mode
I/O, then transitioning the connection in to RDMA mode. None of that is
implemented. Also, iSCSI/ISER does _not_ use different ports for
streaming mode vs data-mover/rdma modes. It is negotiated and assumes
the same 4tuple.
But, if we assume that reasonable services should use different ports
for tcp vs rdma connections for the same service, then maybe all thats
needed is a way to choose ephemeral ports without colliding with the TCP
stack. Like maybe segmenting the ephemeral port space for TCP and RDMA
ranges? This could be done without impacting the core networking code I
think. This would still require a mvapich2 change to have the stack
choose a port instead of randomly trying ports until one is available.
This angle doesn't solve everything either, but it avoids 2 separate
subnets...
Steve.
Arkady Kanevsky email: [email protected]
Network Appliance Inc. phone: 781-768-5395
1601 Trapelo Rd. - Suite 16. Fax: 781-895-1195
Waltham, MA 02451 central phone: 781-768-5300
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Hefty [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:12 PM
To: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean Hefty; Steve Wise
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ofa-general] [PATCH v3] iw_cxgb3:
Support"iwarp-only"interfacesto avoid 4-tuple conflicts.
What is the model on how client connects, say for iSCSI, when client
and server both support, iWARP and 10GbE or 1GbE, and would like to
setup "most" performant "connection" for ULP?
For the "most" performance connection, the ULP would use IB,
and all these problems go away. :)
This proposal is for each iwarp interface to have its own IP
address. Clients would need an iwarp usable address of the
server and would connect using rdma_connect(). If that call
(or rdma_resolve_addr/route) fails, the client could try
connecting using sockets, aoi, or some other interface. I
don't see that Steve's proposal changes anything from the
client's perspective.
- Sean
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
