From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sunrpc: flag transports as using IETF approved congestion control protocols Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:26:09 -0700 Message-ID: <20170223202609.GC26301@obsidianresearch.com> References: <20170223170337.10686-1-jlayton@redhat.com> <20170223170337.10686-2-jlayton@redhat.com> <2152dfdf-f847-2511-1600-6499b6ea9708@talpey.com> <1487880034.3448.8.camel@redhat.com> <65056db6-f30a-c44d-b01c-b549887c4895@talpey.com> <20170223201109.GC11882@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170223201109.GC11882-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Tom Talpey , Jeff Layton , trond.myklebust-7I+n7zu2hftEKMMhf/gKZA@public.gmane.org, schumaker.anna-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Chuck Lever , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 03:11:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > (And if we really shouldn't be doing NFSv4 over some RDMA transports--is > it worth supporting them at all, if the only support we can get is > NFSv3-only?) This seems like a strange comment - NFSv4 should be supported on all RDMA transports, surely? Largely RDMA lives in its own congestion management world. If a site is running RDMA they have done something to mitigate interactions with TCP style congestion control on the same wire. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html