The FNN (Flat Neighborhood Network) paradox
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Bogdan Costescu bogdan.costescu at iwr.uni-heidelberg.deFri Feb 23 04:50:30 PST 2001
- Previous message: The FNN (Flat Neighborhood Network) paradox
- Next message: Combined use of FNNs and AFNs
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Georgia Southern Beowulf Cluster Project wrote: > 3. M2 loads the channel-bonding module (all NICS are on different switches) > and sends a reply over the AFN to M1 that it is ready for transmission. Loading a module is not an instant operation. You can send lots of normal (i.e. on a single link) traffic before the module becomes operational. If your software is sensitive to latency (apart from being sensitive to bandwidth which is the reason why you would use bonding), you loose. But if you're doing something coarse-grained (like image rendering), it might fit well. Sincerely, Bogdan Costescu IWR - Interdisziplinaeres Zentrum fuer Wissenschaftliches Rechnen Universitaet Heidelberg, INF 368, D-69120 Heidelberg, GERMANY Telephone: +49 6221 54 8869, Telefax: +49 6221 54 8868 E-mail: Bogdan.Costescu at IWR.Uni-Heidelberg.De
- Previous message: The FNN (Flat Neighborhood Network) paradox
- Next message: Combined use of FNNs and AFNs
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
