From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:12:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:12:36 -0400 Received: from mean.netppl.fi ([195.242.208.16]:60678 "EHLO mean.netppl.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:12:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:12:27 +0300 From: Pekka Pietikainen To: Bogdan Costescu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux and system area networks Message-ID: <20010628221227.A24517@netppl.fi> In-Reply-To: <20010627154140.A14908@netppl.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 07:28:20PM +0200, Bogdan Costescu wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Pekka Pietikainen wrote: > > I'm sorry, but I don't understand your reference to MPI here. MPI is a > high-level API; MPI can run on top of whatever communication features > exists: TCP/IP, shared memory, VI, etc. Well, the way I understood the discussion was about how you can utilize your new $$$ SAN boards well with your existing applications. If you used something like MPI you just switch to a new implementation optimized for your network (and hope the new one is compatible with your code ;) ) Of course you can use some lower-level API and get better performance, but your programs will undoubtedly be more complicated and probably need to be rewritten for new APIs every now and then. If you used sockets, I believe the normal way to use SAN boards is to just make them look like network cards with a large MTU Sure it works, but it's not very efficient :) (I have to admit I've not played with that kind of toys at all, though) -- Pekka Pietikainen