[Beowulf] Performance tuning for Jumbo Frames
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.
Eric W. Biederman ebiederm at xmission.comSat Jan 2 11:43:34 PST 2010
- Next message: [Beowulf] [hpc-announce] CCGrid 2010: CALL FOR POSTERS
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com> writes: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:41:59PM -0500, Patrick Geoffray wrote: > >> So, instead of requiring ~4K per port minimum, you need about ~20K per >> port. Add to that up to 8 priorities with DCB and the buffering >> requirement are quickly getting out of hand. > > Don't worry, switch vendors will simply implement it all poorly, just > like InfiniBand. That's what always happens with overly-complicated > QOS schemes. The way I have heard per priority flow control expected to be used is one priority does pause frames ( for fcoe ) and the other priorities drop frames, as dropping frames when congested avoids head of line blocking, and thus gives better network performance overall. Of course in practice at 10G type speeds you want enough switch buffers so you don't normally drop packets, but that is a different story. Eric
- Next message: [Beowulf] [hpc-announce] CCGrid 2010: CALL FOR POSTERS
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
