mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Venkatesh Ramamurthy <Venkateshr@ami.com>
To: "'Alan Cox'" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: pollard@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil,
	Venkatesh Ramamurthy <Venkateshr@ami.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [RFC] Direct Sockets Support??
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:40:31 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1355693A51C0D211B55A00105ACCFE6402B9DECE@ATL_MS1> (raw)

> For the case where the routing will be external. Thats conveniently
> something
> you can deduce in advance. In theory nothing stops you implementing this.
> Conventionally you would do that with BSD sockets by implementing a new
> socket family PF_INFINIBAND. You might then choose to make the selection
> of that either done by the application or under it by C library overrides.
> 
	Thats exactly my point, we need to define a new protocol family to
support it. This means that all applications using PF_INET needs to be
changed and recompiled. My basic argument goes like this if hardware can
support the notion of connection, the sockets layer should be aware of this
and send all request to the hw. I can assign an IPv4 address(for sake of
backward compatiblity) and get away w/o software TCP/IP.i get the
performance benefit of hardware TCP/IP (notion of connection). 

	The windoze 2000 DDK has an interesting section about WinSock
direct(r) that lets the SAN hardware (like IB) to still use traditional
PF_INET for it.

	Also one interesting whitepaper 
	
http://servernet.himalaya.compaq.com/snet2/whitepapers/WSD_Perf_White_Paper_
3-21-01.doc



             reply	other threads:[~2001-05-03 20:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-05-03 20:40 Venkatesh Ramamurthy [this message]
2001-05-03 21:52 ` Alan Cox
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-05-08 20:18 Venkatesh Ramamurthy
2001-05-08 20:50 ` Alan Cox
2001-05-08 21:32 ` 'Pete Wyckoff'
     [not found] <034670D62D19D31180990090277A37B701811D72@mercury.corp.iready.com>
2001-05-08 13:04 ` Alan Cox
2001-05-08 20:00   ` Pete Wyckoff
2001-05-03 20:55 Venkatesh Ramamurthy
2001-05-03 20:23 Jesse Pollard
2001-05-03 19:25 Venkatesh Ramamurthy
2001-05-03 20:29 ` Alan Cox
2001-05-03 19:23 Jesse Pollard
2001-05-03 18:59 Venkatesh Ramamurthy
2001-05-03 20:17 ` Alan Cox
     [not found] <007901c0d3fd$ea3f0880$7253e59b@megatrends.com>
2001-05-03 18:34 ` Alan Cox

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1355693A51C0D211B55A00105ACCFE6402B9DECE@ATL_MS1 \
    --to=venkateshr@ami.com \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pollard@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®