[Beowulf] Spanning Tree Protocol and latency: allowing loops in switching networks for minimizing switch hops
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.
Rahul Nabar rpnabar at gmail.comTue Feb 23 12:10:10 PST 2010
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Spanning Tree Protocol and latency: allowing loops in switching networks for minimizing switch hops
- Next message: [Beowulf] Spanning Tree Protocol and latency: allowing loops in switching networks for minimizing switch hops
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Gerry Creager <gerry.creager at tamu.edu> wrote: > > It's my firm opinion that loops and STP are evil for HPC installations. > Period. Thanks Gerry! This seems like one of the rare HPC-topics where such a clear answer is present! :) "It depends" is more usual for me to hear. I bet you have excellent reasons for hating STP so much, but can I know why? Just curious. Bad implementations, performance hits? Pardon my ignorance, if I am asking something that's plain obviously "evil". -- Rahul
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Spanning Tree Protocol and latency: allowing loops in switching networks for minimizing switch hops
- Next message: [Beowulf] Spanning Tree Protocol and latency: allowing loops in switching networks for minimizing switch hops
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list