[Ofa_boardplus] Jason's draft preso to the Linux Plumbers' Conference
christoph at lameter.com
Thu Aug 31 18:53:26 PDT 2017
OK sorry. OK if Intel is participating then the "truescale" fabrics are
still IB ( right ?) and so that's what makes it worthwhile. It would be
interesting to see who participates and how the participation develops over
On Aug 31, 2017 8:00 PM, "Paul Grun" <grun at cray.com> wrote:
> With all due respect to an interesting exchange, I suggest we stay focused
> on the task at hand, which is to review Jason’s slides to ensure the OFA is
> presented fairly.
> Respectfully, I don’t think this is the right place to be discussing the
> future of the IWG/Logo/Interop programs.
> *From:* Ofa_boardplus [mailto:ofa_boardplus-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Jim Ryan
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 31, 2017 5:57 PM
> *To:* Christoph Lameter <christoph at lameter.com>; Bowden, Paul <
> paul.bowden at intel.com>
> *Cc:* ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org, <ofa_boardplus at lists.
> *Subject:* Re: [Ofa_boardplus] Jason's draft preso to the Linux Plumbers'
> Christoph, thanks *very* much for your comments -- I'm happy to respond as
> best I can. First, I feel like I have to apologize in advance for focusing
> on specific words or phrasing. I take no pleasure in doing this. Your
> request for a list of membership in the IWG is not what you meant to say,
> respectfully. The IWG oversees the interop program. The companies that
> participate in the logo/interop program -- those terms are consciously
> conjoined -- are different.
> I *think* we can provide the names of the participants in the logo/interop
> program, I'm asking for Bill who handles and payments and Paul Bowden,
> chair of the IWG to confirm. I'm happy to provide the names of IWG members
> though, as I've suggested, I don't think that's what you want.
> I also want to be clear we've developed and used an algorithm over the
> last few years that charges logo/interop program participants based on the
> number of devices to be tested. Based on that, I can tell you Mellanox and
> Intel have by far the highest level of fees and so far they've agreed to
> pay them. I'm making no claim for the future
> Again, I'm asking you to accept the view the logo/interop program, as it's
> currently constructed, has biz value to current participants. I don't see
> any reason to shut down a program they, participants, see value in
> thanks again, Jim
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Christoph Lameter <christoph at lameter.com>
> Which companies are participating in the IWG? It seems that Mellanox
> is at this point the overwhelming provider of most of the Infiniband
> technology with just minor niches occupied by others. Our own
> experience with trying to use technology from Qlogic on a single
> system (2011) failed miserably. Intel is moving to Omnipath. Others
> simply focus on Ethernet to have a vendor neutral shared standard.
> It seems to us therefore (Jump Trading) that there is a trend for
> interconnect technology to become vendor specific whereas the APIs to
> access the interconnect (RDMA subsystem in the kernel) provide a
> common way of using these fabrics by essentially providing a hardware
> abstraction layer for fabrics in the Linux Kernel.
> Given this I would like to see a list of participants in the IWG and
> if its is as dominated as I think it is by Mellanox then we should
> slowly shut down the program and focus on the software layer while
> continuing to provide a forum for the exchange of innovative ideas
> about fabrics.
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Jim Ryan <jimdryan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok, I think I see your point. Your consciously blending membership dues
> > interop program participation to make a point. I don't want to argue that
> > point, but I do want to be painfully clear about something. The approach
> > take is conscious and, for example, specifically contrary to, for example
> > the IBTA. We view interop as a program of value to participants who make
> > biz decision to fund it. The IBTA, in contrast, views testing as a member
> > benefit available to all based on membership dues.
> > Those of us who have been involved with this issue, actually for years,
> > share your frustration, if I may characterize it as such, with the
> > indifference on the part of the vast majority of members. There have been
> > important contributions in the past in the form of donated equipment, but
> > I'll quickly ack this has been from a small number of donors and not
> > recently. The actual components are, AFAIK, left behind after testing. I
> > have requested another call for donations but, for whatever reason, that
> > hasn't happened.
> > I *do* have to ask you to not use terms along the lines of "membership
> > funding"; there is no such thing. There is participant funding and a
> > of "membership" indifference. I'm trying to ack an element of your
> > but continue to make the distinction clear.
> > Re the quality of testing, that's a challenge for the IWG. One of, if not
> > *the* most important thing they're responsible for is quality of
> testing. If
> > something is broken there, I'm not aware of it, and we need to come to
> > understand this.
> > Finally, I realized I failed to respond to a point you made earlier. It's
> > kinda delicate, but important. The OFA is specifically not "chartered" to
> > develop specs and the IBTA and others are. There are IP provisions that
> > to exist if this is part of our mission or not. I can give you boring
> > details if you want to hear more.
> > The reason this is delicate is because the OFIWG has had to go right to
> > edge of what we can do, to use MAN pages to document expected API
> > functionality. We have agreed this is short of a spec, but you get the
> > point; it's a fine but important distinction.
> > I hope this helps, Jim
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
> > <jgunthorpe at obsidianresearch.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 04:05:49PM -0700, Jim Ryan wrote:
> >> > First, Jason, it appears you're working under a misunderstanding
> >> > which I think Bill tried to correct, but perhaps he could have used
> >> > different words. The interop program is self-funding in the sense
> >> > the cost of the testing is borne
> >> No, I do understand this very well.
> >> The fact IWG participation is optional, and that it is billed on a
> >> cost recovery basis, is not relevant to my point. I am observing that
> >> of all the funds the membership chooses to send to the OFA, 50% are
> >> directed to UNH-IOL (by the direct choice of the membership).
> >> While at the same time the membership cannot be bothered to properly
> >> equip UNH-IOL to actually test the software, and does not seem
> >> interested in the logo program.
> >> So, exactly why, is the membership choosing to continue fund this?
> >> > Re the logo program being out of date and maybe valueless, I can
> >> > simply say two things. I know of vendors for whom this *testing* is
> >> > extremely important. I view that info as being confidential so as
> >> > loathsome as it is to me, I have to ask you to trust me. Notice I'm
> >> > not making the same claim for the logo.
> >> From what I can see the testing is far less useful than I assumed it
> >> was. Maybe your sources are also operating under poor assumptions?
> >> Jason
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ofa_boardplus mailing list
> > Ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org
> > http://lists.openfabrics.org/mailman/listinfo/ofa_boardplus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ofa_boardplus