<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2654.89">
<TITLE>RE: [openfabrics-ewg] Re: How to generate IBED releases using 1.0branch</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Jeff,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The BOD voted to support the EWG initiative to enable IB vendors to create a common and supportable enterprise-grade distribution - something they can stand behind and support 24x7. The main challenge to be solved, as Dave Ford has put forth numerous times, is supportability.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The goal is certainly to converge on one stack, but not compromise supportability in any way. If there is a compromise on supportability, individual vendors will be again forced to create and release their own snapshots of Open Fabrics that cannot be proven interoperable - we have seen this happen from many of us as recently as the Jan-Feb.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>We have two possible outcomes out of this effort:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>(1) Possible confusion (since the BOD voted on this unanimously, I have my doubts about the extent and implication of this, but one can always argue)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>(2) A common, interoperable Open Fabrics distribution from all IB vendors that they can confidently stand behind and support 24x7</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I think (2) is far more important and we need to allow the team to make this happen and not distract any further.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Come end of May, after the software is released, let's see if we have a converged EWG and Open Fabrics 1.0. May be we will have one, and this discussion will be mute. If we do not, lets re-evaluate then and see what we can do.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-Sujal</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Jeff Broughton [<A HREF="mailto:jeff@pathscale.com">mailto:jeff@pathscale.com</A>] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:37 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: Tziporet Koren</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Cc: Shawn Hansen (shahanse); Openfabrics-ewg@openib.org; Sujal Das; Michael S. Tsirkin</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: [openfabrics-ewg] Re: How to generate IBED releases using 1.0branch</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>There are two interesting questions about the differences between EWG </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>release and OpenFabrics: First, why are they different? Second, should </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>they be different?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Why are they different?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Absent the participation of many of the current players, the decision </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>was taken to create a release that fulfilled OpenFabrics mission of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>integration with the commercial OSes and providing production-worthy </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>software. These factors led to two crucial tactics.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>1) The release should only use components in the kernel.org tree that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>was to be adopted by RedHat and SuSE. This way customers of the major OS </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>distributions would have the necessary software to run OpenFabrics </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>without mucking around with the kernel. The other consequence of this </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>was to only release the user-level software that wasn't immediately </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>destined to be in the distros.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>2) Components were selected on the basis of their stability, and hence, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>likelihood that they would survive testing by the community. There </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>would be no "beta" components to confuse the consumers.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The EWG release appropriately intends to include all ULPs that customers </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>have a strong immediate interest in. SDP, in particular, is important. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> But since SDP is not in the kernel.org tree, that forces the decision </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>for the EWG release to include kernel components. Likewise, given the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>stability of some of these packages, the notion of a technology preview </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>becomes necessary.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Should they be different?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>IMHO, no. For the most part, the same players are working on both. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>There are only a few developers not represented by the organizations in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the EWG. Frankly, to allow these two to diverge would only be to add </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>work for us all, and cause customer confusion.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>It is entirely within our power to resolve the discrepancies in the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>strategy, and to make sure that there is only a single release.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Jeff Broughton</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Vice President of Engineering</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>PathScale, Inc.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>2071 Stierlin Ct.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Mountain View, CA 94043-4655</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Phone: 650-934-8080</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>