Messages in this thread |  | | From | Venkatesh Ramamurthy <> | Subject | RE: [RFC] Direct Sockets Support?? | Date | Thu, 3 May 2001 16:40:31 -0400 |
| |
> 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
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |