Channel-bonding - choice of switch?
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.
Josip Loncaric josip at icase.eduThu Jul 12 07:54:09 PDT 2001
- Previous message: Channel-bonding - choice of switch?
- Next message: Channel-bonding - choice of switch?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jakob Østergaard wrote: > > You can buy separate switches, unmanaged dirt cheap ones. Sounds reasonable, and if we did use channel bonding, that's what we'd do. This "separate switches" solution results in two identical but physicaly separate LANs, which means that you also need a bridge machine between channel-bonded nodes and normal machines. The bridge machine can be a bottleneck for applications that need high bandwidth to normal machines (data servers, video displays). Sincerely, Josip -- Dr. Josip Loncaric, Research Fellow mailto:josip at icase.edu ICASE, Mail Stop 132C PGP key at http://www.icase.edu./~josip/ NASA Langley Research Center mailto:j.loncaric at larc.nasa.gov Hampton, VA 23681-2199, USA Tel. +1 757 864-2192 Fax +1 757 864-6134
- Previous message: Channel-bonding - choice of switch?
- Next message: Channel-bonding - choice of switch?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
