Re: TOE brain dump

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Werner Almesberger <werner@almesberger.net> writes:

> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > MPI is not a transport.  It an interface like the Berkeley sockets
> > layer.
> 
> Hmm, but doesn't it also unify transport semantics (i.e. chop
> TCP streams into messages), maybe add reliability to transports
> that don't have it, and provide addressing ? Okay, perhaps you
> wouldn't call this a transport in the OSI sense, but it still
> seems to have considerably more functionality than just
> providing an API.

Those are all features of the MPI implementation.  It is
not that MPI does not have an underlying transport.  MPI has
a lot of underlying transports.  And there is a different MPI
implementation for each transport.  Although a lot of them start
with a common base.
 
> > Mostly I think the that is less true, at least if they can stand the
> > process of severe code review and cleaning up their code.
> 
> Hmm, people putting dozens of millions into building clusters
> can't afford to have what is probably their most essential
> infrastructure code reviewed and cleaned up ? Oh dear.

Afford, they can do.  A lot of the users are researchers and
a lot of people doing the code are researchers.  So corralling
them up and getting production quality code can be a challenge,
or getting them to take small enough steps that they don't
frighten the rest of the world.

Plus ten million dollars pretty much buys you a spot in the top 10 of
the top 500 supercomputers.  The bulk of the clusters are a lot less
expensive than that.
 
> > But of course to get through the peer review process people need
> > to understand what they are doing.
> 
> A good point :-)
> 
> > So store and forward of packets in a 3 layer switch hierarchy, at 1.3 us
> > per copy.
> 
> But your switch could just do cut-through, no ? Or do they
> need to recompute checksums ?

Correct, switches can and generally do implement cut-through in that
kind of environment.  I was just showing that even at 10Gbps treating
a packet as an atomic unit has issues.  cut-through is necessary
to keep your latency down.  Do any ethernet switches do cut-through?
 
> > A lot of the NICs which are used for MPI tend to be smart for two
> > reasons.  1) So they can do source routing. 2) So they can safely
> > export some of their interface to user space, so in the fast path
> > they can bypass the kernel.
> 
> The second part could be interesting for TOE, too. Only that
> the interface exported would just be the socket interface.

Agreed.  

Eric