From rddp-bounces@ietf.org Mon May 07 19:07:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlCIl-0008Uo-Fq; Mon, 07 May 2007 19:07:31 -0400 Received: from rddp by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HlCIh-0008U8-6J for rddp-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 19:07:27 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlC5f-00048w-W4 for rddp@ietf.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 18:54:00 -0400 Received: from mail.ttlc.net ([66.94.32.4]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlC5d-0005GN-Ao for rddp@ietf.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 18:53:59 -0400 Received: from bbrdv9000 [70.90.99.65] by mail.ttlc.net with ESMTP (SMTPD-9.04) id ADF056D4; Mon, 07 May 2007 18:53:36 -0400 From: "bbr" To: "RDDP" Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 18:51:58 -0400 Organization: Lamprey Networks Message-ID: <000801c790fa$5318b3a0$f94a1ae0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 thread-index: AceQ+lD5y+Suee+4QeSfYNWclc9ESg== Content-Language: en-us X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 83e9494d829b08cc3f644ef6ac1b9bd4 Subject: [rddp] Intent of statement X-BeenThere: rddp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bbr@lampreynetworks.com List-Id: "IETF Remote Direct Data Placement \(rddp\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1914158133==" Errors-To: rddp-bounces@ietf.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --===============1914158133== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C790D8.CC0713A0" Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C790D8.CC0713A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Page 36 of draft 07 or RDMAP states that: HdrCt: 3 bits. Header control bits: * M: bit 16. DDP Segment Length valid. See Figure 10 for when this bit SHOULD be set. * D: bit 17. DDP Header Included. See Figure 10 for when this bit SHOULD be set. * R: bit 18. RDMAP Header Included. See Figure 10 for when this bit SHOULD be set. The SHOULD statements in this text indicate that these items are optional. However, in reading the text it appears that the intent may have been that these statements are just incorrectly capitalized "should" statements and best understood as: HdrCt: 3 bits. Header control bits: * M: bit 16. DDP Segment Length valid. See Figure 10 for when to set this bit. * D: bit 17. DDP Header Included. See Figure 10 for when to set this bit. * R: bit 18. RDMAP Header Included. See Figure 10 for when to set this bit. The implication of this would be, for instance, that an implementation MUST set the R bit and return the received RDMA header when generating a terminate for a read request that generated a remote protection error due to an invalid Stag. A literal reading of the current wording (with SHOULD) leaves a somewhat conflicted state in which figure 10 states that the RDMA header is required but that it is not necessary to set the R bit. Unless instructed otherwise I am going to assume that the SHOULD in HdrCt is not really normative. Hope someone is still reading this reflector.. Barry Reinhold (603) 868-8411 bbr@lampreynetworks.com ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C790D8.CC0713A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Page 36 of draft 07 or RDMAP states = that:

HdrCt: 3 bits.

Header control bits:

* M: bit 16. DDP Segment Length valid. See Figure 10 = for when this bit SHOULD be set.

* D: bit 17. DDP Header Included. See Figure 10 for = when this bit SHOULD be set.

* R: bit 18. RDMAP Header Included. See Figure 10 for = when this bit SHOULD be set.

The SHOULD statements in this text indicate that = these items are optional. However, in reading the text it appears that the intent = may have been that these statements are just incorrectly capitalized = “should” statements and best understood as:

HdrCt: 3 bits.

Header control bits:

* M: bit 16. DDP Segment Length valid. See Figure 10 = for when to set this bit.

* D: bit 17. DDP Header Included. See Figure 10 for = when to set this bit.

* R: bit 18. RDMAP Header Included. See Figure 10 for = when to set this bit.

The implication of this would be, for instance, that = an implementation MUST set the R bit and return the received RDMA header when generating a terminate for a read request that generated a remote protection error = due to an invalid Stag.

A literal reading of the current wording (with = SHOULD) leaves a somewhat conflicted state in which figure 10 states that the RDMA = header is required but that it is not necessary to set the R bit.

Unless instructed otherwise I am going to assume that = the SHOULD in HdrCt is not really normative.

Hope someone is still reading this = reflector….

Barry Reinhold

(603) 868-8411

bbr@lampreynetworks.com=

------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C790D8.CC0713A0-- --===============1914158133== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp --===============1914158133==-- From rddp-bounces@ietf.org Mon May 07 19:26:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlCbB-0008Av-Rj; Mon, 07 May 2007 19:26:33 -0400 Received: from rddp by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HlCbA-0008Aq-2t for rddp-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 19:26:32 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlCb9-0008Ai-Pd for rddp@ietf.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 19:26:31 -0400 Received: from mail.ttlc.net ([66.94.32.4]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlCb8-0004rv-GL for rddp@ietf.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 19:26:31 -0400 Received: from bbrdv9000 [70.90.99.65] by mail.ttlc.net with ESMTP (SMTPD-9.04) id A5FC0838; Mon, 07 May 2007 19:27:56 -0400 From: "bbr" To: "RDDP" Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 19:26:16 -0400 Organization: Lamprey Networks Message-ID: <001301c790ff$1ec81dc0$5c585940$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 thread-index: AceQ/xwBAEEodzn2TJKc7DDy1gXabA== Content-Language: en-us X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 86f85b2f88b0d50615aed44a7f9e33c7 Subject: [rddp] Is DDP header requred? X-BeenThere: rddp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bbr@lampreynetworks.com List-Id: "IETF Remote Direct Data Placement \(rddp\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0480140104==" Errors-To: rddp-bounces@ietf.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --===============0480140104== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01C790DD.97B67DC0" Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C790DD.97B67DC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DDP and RDMAP appear to provide conflicting information as to whether or not a DDP header is required when DDP detects an invalid STAG. Draft 07 of DDP in clause 7.1 states: If the DDP layer detects any of the receive errors listed in this section, it MUST cease placing the remainder of the DDP Segment and report the error(s) to the ULP. The DDP layer SHOULD include in the error report the DDP Header, the type of error, and the length of the DDP segment, if available. Draft 07 or RDMAP in figure 10 for a DDP error places a "YES" in the column that identifies the DDP header as being required. The question is "Does she or doesn't she".. Have to provide the DDP header? Barry Reinhold (603) 868-8411 bbr@lampreynetworks.com ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C790DD.97B67DC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

DDP and RDMAP appear to provide conflicting = information as to whether or not a DDP header is required when DDP detects an invalid = STAG.

Draft 07 of DDP in clause 7.1 = states:

If the DDP layer = detects any of the receive errors listed in this

section, it MUST = cease placing the remainder of the DDP Segment and

report the error(s) = to the ULP. The DDP layer SHOULD include in the

error report the DDP = Header, the type of error, and the length of

the DDP segment, = if available.

Draft 07 or RDMAP in figure 10 for a DDP error = places a “YES” in the column that identifies the DDP header as being = required.

The question is “Does she or = doesn’t she”…. Have to provide the DDP header?

Barry Reinhold

(603) 868-8411

bbr@lampreynetworks.com=

------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C790DD.97B67DC0-- --===============0480140104== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp --===============0480140104==-- From rddp-bounces@ietf.org Mon May 07 21:54:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlEue-0003MR-0w; Mon, 07 May 2007 21:54:48 -0400 Received: from rddp by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HlEuc-0003ML-Kc for rddp-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 21:54:46 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlEuc-0003MD-9n for rddp@ietf.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 21:54:46 -0400 Received: from mms3.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.19]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlEub-0007Pt-QQ for rddp@ietf.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 21:54:46 -0400 Received: from [10.10.64.154] by MMS3.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.1)); Mon, 07 May 2007 18:54:31 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 20144BB6-FB76-4F11-80B6-E6B2900CA0D7 Received: by mail-irva-10.broadcom.com (Postfix, from userid 47) id CCCC32AF; Mon, 7 May 2007 18:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-irva-8.broadcom.com (mail-irva-8 [10.10.64.221]) by mail-irva-10.broadcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74142AE; Mon, 7 May 2007 18:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sj1-12.sj.broadcom.com (mail-sj1-12.sj.broadcom.com [10.16.128.215]) by mail-irva-8.broadcom.com (MOS 3.7.5a-GA) with ESMTP id FGV96884; Mon, 7 May 2007 18:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NT-SJCA-0750.brcm.ad.broadcom.com (nt-sjca-0750 [10.16.192.220]) by mail-sj1-12.sj.broadcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F65A20501; Mon, 7 May 2007 18:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NT-SJCA-0752.brcm.ad.broadcom.com ([10.16.192.222]) by NT-SJCA-0750.brcm.ad.broadcom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 7 May 2007 18:53:55 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [rddp] Is DDP header requred? Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 18:53:49 -0700 Message-ID: <87AC500EEF9B9344B4A8D8A017C2F45537F236@NT-SJCA-0752.brcm.ad.broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <001301c790ff$1ec81dc0$5c585940$@com> Thread-Topic: [rddp] Is DDP header requred? thread-index: AceQ/xwBAEEodzn2TJKc7DDy1gXabAAEzIBg From: "Pat Thaler" To: bbr@lampreynetworks.com, "RDDP" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2007 01:53:55.0780 (UTC) FILETIME=[BC978040:01C79113] X-WSS-ID: 6A2107DD38G25984976-01-01 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e367d58950869b6582535ddf5a673488 Cc: X-BeenThere: rddp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "IETF Remote Direct Data Placement \(rddp\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0824041127==" Errors-To: rddp-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0824041127== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C79113.BC5FD99F" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C79113.BC5FD99F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As far as I recall, we made providing the header a "SHOULD" to allow for extreme cases where ddp didn't have enough resources to save the header. I.e. if ddp used a shared resource to save bad headers and had multiple errors that exhausted that space. The RDMAP draft isn't specifying DDP so the "SHOULD" in DDP should take precidence.=20 =20 The YES in the header column in RDMAP can be understood as informative about the usual behavior (the SHOULD is normally followed) and not the equivalent of a MUST. =20 Pat ________________________________ From: bbr [mailto:bbr@lampreynetworks.com]=20 Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 4:26 PM To: RDDP Subject: [rddp] Is DDP header requred? DDP and RDMAP appear to provide conflicting information as to whether or not a DDP header is required when DDP detects an invalid STAG. =20 Draft 07 of DDP in clause 7.1 states: =20 If the DDP layer detects any of the receive errors listed in this=20 section, it MUST cease placing the remainder of the DDP Segment and=20 report the error(s) to the ULP. The DDP layer SHOULD include in the=20 error report the DDP Header, the type of error, and the length of=20 the DDP segment, if available. =20 =20 Draft 07 or RDMAP in figure 10 for a DDP error places a "YES" in the column that identifies the DDP header as being required. =20 The question is "Does she or doesn't she".... Have to provide the DDP header? =20 Barry Reinhold (603) 868-8411 bbr@lampreynetworks.com =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C79113.BC5FD99F Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As far=20 as I recall, we made providing the header a "SHOULD" to allow for = extreme=20 cases where ddp didn't have enough resources to save the header. I.e. if = ddp=20 used a shared resource to save bad headers and had multiple errors that=20 exhausted that space. The RDMAP draft isn't specifying DDP so the = "SHOULD" in=20 DDP should take precidence.

The=20 YES in the header column in RDMAP can be understood as informative about = the=20 usual behavior (the SHOULD is normally followed) and not the equivalent = of a=20 MUST.

Pat

From: bbr = [mailto:bbr@lampreynetworks.com]=20
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 4:26 PM
To:=20 RDDP
Subject: [rddp] Is DDP header = requred?

DDP and RDMAP appear to provide conflicting = information as to=20 whether or not a DDP header is required when DDP detects an invalid=20 STAG.

Draft 07 of DDP in clause 7.1 = states:

If the DDP layer = detects any of=20 the receive errors listed in this

section, it MUST = cease placing=20 the remainder of the DDP Segment and

report the error(s) = to the ULP.=20 The DDP layer SHOULD include in the

error report the DDP = Header, the=20 type of error, and the length of

the DDP segment, if = available.=20

Draft 07 or RDMAP in figure 10 for a DDP error = places a “YES”=20 in the column that identifies the DDP header as being = required.

The question is “Does she or = doesn’t she”…. Have to=20 provide the DDP header?

Barry=20 Reinhold

(603) 868-8411

bbr@lampreynetworks.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C79113.BC5FD99F-- --===============0824041127== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp --===============0824041127==-- From rddp-bounces@ietf.org Mon May 07 22:28:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlFRR-0007fT-5F; Mon, 07 May 2007 22:28:41 -0400 Received: from rddp by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HlFRP-0007fG-QO for rddp-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 22:28:39 -0400 Received: from rddp by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HlFRP-0007f8-4O for rddp@ietf.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 22:28:39 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlFOp-0007UW-S3 for rddp@ietf.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 22:25:59 -0400 Received: from rodney.xo.com ([207.155.252.48]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlFOo-0004C5-KB for rddp@ietf.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 22:25:59 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (w211.z064002090.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [64.2.90.211]) (as admin@wingarch.xohost.com) by rodney.xo.com (ConcentricHost(2.54) Relay) with ESMTP id 17C69E01F for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 22:25:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <463FDF92.7050900@wingarch.com> Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 22:25:22 -0400 From: Nicholas Ferguson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rddp@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 X-TMDA-Confirmed: Mon, 07 May 2007 22:28:39 -0400 Subject: [rddp] RDMA over TCP/IP - IWARP but for Windows X-BeenThere: rddp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "IETF Remote Direct Data Placement \(rddp\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rddp-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I'm looking for an RDMA over TCP/IP that can be plugged into a Windows based OS... it could be iwarp. Is there NIC ( PCI Express) with a windows api? And what else would need to be ported from linux to windows. Project is to handle in memory databases for high frequency data.... financial data... Windows application | .... | RDMA OVER - TCP/IP | Ethernet NIC | ========= High Availability Network ======= _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp From rddp-bounces@ietf.org Tue May 08 10:24:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlQbv-0006nb-5W; Tue, 08 May 2007 10:24:15 -0400 Received: from rddp by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HlQbt-0006nU-R7 for rddp-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 10:24:13 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlQbt-0006nL-Ha for rddp@ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 10:24:13 -0400 Received: from palrel10.hp.com ([156.153.255.245]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlQbs-0006Uk-8I for rddp@ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 10:24:13 -0400 Received: from esmail.cup.hp.com (esmail.cup.hp.com [15.13.191.130]) by palrel10.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECB034BE9; Tue, 8 May 2007 07:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MK73191c.cup.hp.com (je056082.ssr.hp.com [15.47.56.82]) by esmail.cup.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_29774)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA03383; Tue, 8 May 2007 07:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.2.20070508072209.03637838@esmail.cup.hp.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14 Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 07:22:39 -0700 To: Nicholas Ferguson , rddp@ietf.org From: Michael Krause Subject: Re: [rddp] RDMA over TCP/IP - IWARP but for Windows In-Reply-To: <463FDF92.7050900@wingarch.com> References: <463FDF92.7050900@wingarch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Cc: X-BeenThere: rddp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "IETF Remote Direct Data Placement \(rddp\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rddp-bounces@ietf.org See the OpenFabric Alliance open source effort for both Linux and Windows support of the RDMA stacks. OFED 1.2 supports iWARP. Mike At 07:25 PM 5/7/2007, Nicholas Ferguson wrote: >Hi, > >I'm looking for an RDMA over TCP/IP that can be plugged into a Windows >based OS... it could be iwarp. Is there NIC ( PCI Express) with a windows >api? And what else >would need to be ported from linux to windows. Project is to handle in >memory databases for >high frequency data.... financial data... > >Windows application > | > .... > | >RDMA OVER - TCP/IP > | >Ethernet NIC > | >========= High Availability Network ======= > > > > >_______________________________________________ >rddp mailing list >rddp@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp From rddp-bounces@ietf.org Tue May 08 14:40:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlUbg-000872-O6; Tue, 08 May 2007 14:40:16 -0400 Received: from rddp by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HlUbf-00086w-Q4 for rddp-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 14:40:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlUbf-00086o-GY for rddp@ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 14:40:15 -0400 Received: from ajax.xo.com ([207.155.248.44]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlUbd-0004Zh-6B for rddp@ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 14:40:15 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (w211.z064002090.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [64.2.90.211]) (as admin@wingarch.xohost.com) by ajax.xo.com (ConcentricHost(2.54) Relay) with ESMTP id AC5E113124 for ; Tue, 8 May 2007 14:40:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4640C3ED.2010407@wingarch.com> Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 14:39:41 -0400 From: Nicholas Ferguson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rddp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rddp] RDMA over TCP/IP - IWARP but for Windows References: <463FDF92.7050900@wingarch.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20070508072209.03637838@esmail.cup.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20070508072209.03637838@esmail.cup.hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 X-BeenThere: rddp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "IETF Remote Direct Data Placement \(rddp\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rddp-bounces@ietf.org Thank you for the answers. I downloaded several snapshots of OFED-1.2: vlad, swise, monis... Where do I find instructions to build their corresponding windows binaries. Is there a win make file. or a project file? Or an svn for win? Thx Nick Michael Krause wrote: > > See the OpenFabric Alliance open source effort for both Linux and > Windows support of the RDMA stacks. OFED 1.2 supports iWARP. > > Mike > mhagen@iol.unh.edu wrote: > If you do a google search for "netdma" you will find the MS stack that > takes advantage of RDMA. > Otherwise, if you are looking for a more opensource variety: > https://wiki.openfabrics.org/tiki-index.php?page=openIB+Windows > > > At 07:25 PM 5/7/2007, Nicholas Ferguson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm looking for an RDMA over TCP/IP that can be plugged into a Windows >> based OS... it could be iwarp. Is there NIC ( PCI Express) with a >> windows api? And what else >> would need to be ported from linux to windows. Project is to handle >> in memory databases for >> high frequency data.... financial data... >> >> Windows application >> | >> .... >> | >> RDMA OVER - TCP/IP >> | >> Ethernet NIC >> | >> ========= High Availability Network ======= >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rddp mailing list >> rddp@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp > > > > _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp From rddp-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 09 10:48:59 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlnTO-000441-Az; Wed, 09 May 2007 10:48:58 -0400 Received: from rddp by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HlXEm-0004Cr-SH for rddp-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 17:28:48 -0400 Received: from rddp by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HlXEm-0004Cj-J0 for rddp@ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 17:28:48 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlVyl-00007V-5a for rddp@ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 16:08:11 -0400 Received: from mailout2.dl.nec.com ([143.101.113.2]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlVyj-0004br-LV for rddp@ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 16:08:11 -0400 Received: from zaphod.necsam.com ([131.241.25.14]) by mailout2.dl.nec.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l48K84Ig021538; Tue, 8 May 2007 15:08:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from scexchbh1.necsam.com (scexchbh1.necsam.com [131.241.25.218]) by zaphod.necsam.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l48K5qfW013147; Tue, 8 May 2007 13:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seaexch1.sea.necsam.com ([131.241.39.7]) by scexchbh1.necsam.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 8 May 2007 13:07:59 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [rddp] RDMA over TCP/IP - IWARP but for Windows Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 13:07:58 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4640C3ED.2010407@wingarch.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rddp] RDMA over TCP/IP - IWARP but for Windows Thread-Index: AceRoGLyfmh4g70ET9q3QNdhndwZ6wACojOg References: <463FDF92.7050900@wingarch.com><6.2.0.14.2.20070508072209.03637838@esmail.cup.hp.com> <4640C3ED.2010407@wingarch.com> From: "Livingston, James" To: "Nicholas Ferguson" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2007 20:07:59.0732 (UTC) FILETIME=[936FAB40:01C791AC] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 34d35111647d654d033d58d318c0d21a X-TMDA-Confirmed: Tue, 08 May 2007 17:28:48 -0400 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 09 May 2007 10:48:56 -0400 Cc: X-BeenThere: rddp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "IETF Remote Direct Data Placement \(rddp\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rddp-bounces@ietf.org You might wish to contact Broadcom, Chelsio and NetEffect for their RNICs, and their RDMA software stacks for Windows; they're normally distributed in binary form, with an installation process. Cheers, jwl James Livingston Engineering and Testing Group NEC Corporation of America Redmond Technology Center 7525 166th Avenue Northeast, Suite D210 Redmond, WA 98052-7811 mailto: James.Livingston@necam.com Phone: 425-897-2033; FAX 425-895-8683 > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicholas Ferguson [mailto:nicholasferguson@wingarch.com]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 11:40 AM > To: rddp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [rddp] RDMA over TCP/IP - IWARP but for Windows >=20 > Thank you for the answers. >=20 > I downloaded several snapshots of OFED-1.2: vlad, swise,=20 > monis... Where=20 > do I find instructions to build their corresponding windows binaries. >=20 > Is there a win make file. or a project file? Or an svn for win? >=20 > Thx >=20 > Nick >=20 >=20 >=20 > Michael Krause wrote: > > > > See the OpenFabric Alliance open source effort for both Linux and=20 > > Windows support of the RDMA stacks. OFED 1.2 supports iWARP. > > > > Mike > > > mhagen@iol.unh.edu wrote: > > If you do a google search for "netdma" you will find the MS=20 > stack that > > takes advantage of RDMA. > > Otherwise, if you are looking for a more opensource variety: > > https://wiki.openfabrics.org/tiki-index.php?page=3DopenIB+Windows > > =20 > > > > At 07:25 PM 5/7/2007, Nicholas Ferguson wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm looking for an RDMA over TCP/IP that can be plugged=20 > into a Windows > >> based OS... it could be iwarp. Is there NIC ( PCI Express) with a=20 > >> windows api? And what else > >> would need to be ported from linux to windows. Project is=20 > to handle=20 > >> in memory databases for > >> high frequency data.... financial data... > >> > >> Windows application > >> | > >> .... > >> | > >> RDMA OVER - TCP/IP > >> | > >> Ethernet NIC > >> | > >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D High Availability Network = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rddp mailing list > >> rddp@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp > > > > > > > > >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > rddp mailing list > rddp@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp >=20 _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp