From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 5 16:46:48 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96CC37B401 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:46:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (A17-250-248-88.apple.com [17.250.248.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5222843FB1 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:46:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from leimy2k@mac.com) Received: from asmtp02.mac.com (asmtp02-qfe3 [10.13.10.66]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id h260khmT006767 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:46:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mac.com ([67.33.228.33]) by asmtp02.mac.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id HBAY5T00.P0W; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:46:41 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:46:39 -0600 Subject: Re: IP over IEEE1394? Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org To: Christopher Fowler From: David Leimbach In-Reply-To: <1046880809.7425.6.camel@cfowler.outpostsentinel.com> Message-Id: <1772895E-4F6D-11D7-885F-0003937E39E0@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 10:13 AM, Christopher Fowler wrote: > If toy are using PVM or similar technologies, would'nt the best route > to > be to pick a transport that is the fastest. Last thing you want is > messages to be bogged down in transport. > Assuming you can afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase such a good transport sure :). Personally I don't think people should purchase clusters but they should purchase cluster time on a well configured server like a utility. IBM seems to believe this is true also. > I would stay away from message passing over slow links. You could use > the firewall for heartbeat. > People do clustering with fast ethernet all the time. ... I know because we sell a lot of it where I work :). Gigabit ethernet is better but switches are costly. Dave > > On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:32, David Leimbach wrote: >> True... I guess I didn't state my case clearly enough that I think IP >> over firewire >> is in itself a good thing for clusters. >> >> ppp connections with it are fine too but not very useful for my line >> of >> work >> which is parallel computing middleware :) >> >> Dave >> On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 08:30 AM, Christopher Fowler wrote: >> >>> The beauty of ppp is that you have support in the kernel to do it. >>> Else, you are stuck to writing some type of interface driver for the >>> kernel. In the short term, this may not be a workable solution. >>> >>> On a side note, >>> >>> I read an article on /. about using firewire + MinDV for backup. I >>> guess I can get some use out of my camera after all. >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:21, David Leimbach wrote: >>>> Yeah... point to point connections are interesting and powerful but >>>> IP >>>> would >>>> be better if we could get it. >>>> >>>> I wish I knew more about how to implement it. :) >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 08:23 AM, Christopher Fowler wrote: >>>> >>>>> This may not be a workable solution, but if you can get 2 programs >>>>> to >>>>> send data across the firewire to one another, you could use pppd >>>>> through >>>>> that tunnel. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 08:25, David Leimbach wrote: >>>>>> Interesting... I didn't even know we had Ethernet over firewire >>>>>> :). >>>>>> >>>>>> Mac OS X and Windows XP both have IP over firewire either working >>>>>> or >>>>>> in the works and somewhat usable. The only one I can claim any >>>>>> experience >>>>>> with is Mac OS X. It's somewhat flaky though and you get >>>>>> unreliable >>>>>> spikes >>>>>> in some basic performance tests I have done with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be a really interesting value added feature for FreeBSD >>>>>> 5.x >>>>>> and could potentially open FBSD up even more to the "cluster" >>>>>> market >>>>>> which is somewhere its not as proliferated as linux. >>>>>> >>>>>> With the advent of firewire2 on the horizon it may be even more >>>>>> impressive. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe there is even an Oracle product for linux which can >>>>>> cluster >>>>>> databases >>>>>> over firewire now. [I don't know if its IP though] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:43 AM, Rossam Souza Silva >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, there is some plan to port NetBSD's implementation of IP over >>>>>>> Firewire? I know, we have "Ethernet over Firewire", but like the >>>>>>> Linux >>>>>>> one, isn't a standard... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just curious. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------- >>>>>>> (_ ) "Contrary to popular belief, UNIX is user friendly. It >>>>>>> just >>>>>>> happens >>>>>>> \\\'',) ^ to be very selective about who it decides to make >>>>>>> friends >>>>>>> with." >>>>>>> \/ \( >>>>>>> .\._/_) Rossam Souza Silva (rss@cin.ufpe.br) >>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >>>>>>> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >>>>>> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >>>> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message >>> >>> >> >> >> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message