From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Tucker Subject: Re: RDMA will be reverted Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:28:25 -0500 Message-ID: <1151616505.11739.99.camel@trinity.ogc.int> References: <1151611866.11739.57.camel@trinity.ogc.int> <20060629.131938.55726619.davem@davemloft.net> <1151614033.11739.82.camel@trinity.ogc.int> <20060629.135310.74748885.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rdreier@cisco.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Return-path: Received: from es335.com ([67.65.19.105]:60508 "EHLO mail.es335.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932695AbWF2V23 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:28:29 -0400 To: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20060629.135310.74748885.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 13:53 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Tom Tucker > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:47:13 -0500 > > > I concede that features have been lost, but some applications benefit > > greatly from RDMA. For these applications and these customers, > > TOE folks give the same story... it's a broken record, really. > > Let us know when you can say something new about the situation. > > Under Linux we get to make better long term architectually sane > decisions, even if it is to the dismay of the backers of certain > short-sighted pieces of technology. Would you indulge me with one final clarification? - Are you condemning RDMA over TCP as an ill-conceived technology? - Are you condemning the implementation of iWARP? - Are you condemning both? Thanks, Tom