[ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF

Ryan, Jim jim.ryan at intel.com
Wed Aug 12 08:28:02 PDT 2015 

Ok, then we are back to the use of the word "verbs". As I've said before, if there's a way for Paul to accomplish what he's trying to without the use of the word, I assume he'll figure it out. I was under the impression it wasn't an important part of their vocabulary

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Gilad Shainer [mailto:Shainer at Mellanox.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:19 AM
To: Ryan, Jim; Paul Grun; Bernard Metzler
Cc: OFA Marketing Working Group (mwg at lists.openfabrics.org); ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: RE: [ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF

Jim,

I don't really understand the answer from your side. Everyone is free to do whatever they want, but communications from OFA I assume should be supportive of all OFA related software. If you read the initial email, the feedback was on the mentioning of verbs. There was nothing in lines of OFI and OFV.  

Regards,
Gilad Shainer 
Vice President, Marketing 
Mellanox Technologies 
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100, Sunnyvale CA, 94085
Office: 408-916-0048, Mobile: 408-421-0048, Fax: 408-585-0348 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan, Jim [mailto:jim.ryan at intel.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:13 AM
To: Gilad Shainer; Paul Grun; Bernard Metzler
Cc: OFA Marketing Working Group (mwg at lists.openfabrics.org); ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: RE: [ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF

Paul can do what he wants, but I don't think any change is called for, at least not along the lines you're suggesting. Regarding Bernard's comment, I think he was offering a hypothetical, along the lines of "it's not appropriate for a WG to criticize, maybe even just mention, another WG". I don't think Bernard was saying that's what's going on here because, again, Paul makes no mention of the OFVWG

I think if you have an argument to make against the use of the word "verbs", you should make it, but I think continuing references to the use of the term "OFVWG" are pointless

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Gilad Shainer [mailto:Shainer at Mellanox.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 12:43 AM
To: Ryan, Jim; Paul Grun; Bernard Metzler
Cc: OFA Marketing Working Group (mwg at lists.openfabrics.org); ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: RE: [ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF

Thanks Jim for the response.

There were no questions nor discussion on OFI charter or the work being done there, same for OFV. Both are well attended and well lead. 

The email exchange was on how should OFA promote the work being done in both groups. The request was that material created by OFA, presenting either group work will focus on its mission, charter, value, and how it helps OFA members and OFA users. As Bernard wrote, there is no need to explain one by doing a comparative discussion with the other. Therefore the request to fix the proposal for SC'15 according to this guidelines. 


Regards,
Gilad Shainer 
Vice President, Marketing 
Mellanox Technologies 
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100, Sunnyvale CA, 94085
Office: 408-916-0048, Mobile: 408-421-0048, Fax: 408-585-0348 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan, Jim [mailto:jim.ryan at intel.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 5:58 PM
To: Gilad Shainer; Paul Grun; Bernard Metzler
Cc: OFA Marketing Working Group (mwg at lists.openfabrics.org); ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: RE: [ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF

I'm at a trade show this week, so it's difficult to track, much less contribute to this discussion, at least not very quickly. I'd really like to put this to work once and for all. Towards that end,  I'd like to offer a few thoughts and ask you to comment very specifically on what I'm saying.

Here's what I believe:
- The OFIWG was approved by the Board, meaning it expects it to deliver on its charter

- The OFIWG is extremely well-lead and follows a scrupulous process of collecting requirements, soliciting and incorporating different points of view, offering frameworks and other constructs and inviting vigorous debate. I know this because I'm on all calls of all of their groups

- Given we have to take the charter of the OFIWG as a given, I don't believe they can accomplish it without use of the word "verbs", among many, many things they're aware of and considering. It's just a necessary element of their vocabulary. If this is incorrect or you have a better word, we need to hear from you, with specifics

- You seem to be conflating the terms "verbs" and "OFVWG". Nowhere does Paul use the latter term. It wouldn't help and it isn't necessary. I'd really like to see you stop doing this. Paul is not "taking shots" at the OFVWG and it's not productive to continue to push that POV

Now, please, tell me calmly and succinctly where I'm wrong. I have no problem with that outcome. I'm trying to be as clear and concise as I can be so I can learn from corrections

Thanks, Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Gilad Shainer [mailto:Shainer at Mellanox.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 1:13 PM
To: Ryan, Jim; Paul Grun; Bernard Metzler
Cc: OFA Marketing Working Group (mwg at lists.openfabrics.org); ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: RE: [ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF

You are right - the source of the discussion here is that there are still things that needed to be fixed. OFV does not include a comparison to OFI and OFI should do the same. As Bernard wrote, publications on OFI should focus on OFI, not to compare to verbs. We can argue what is actually needed, and at the end of the day the user is using higher level APIs than OFI, but this is outside of the discussion here.

The paper what will be presented at HOTI - is that coming from OFA or written outside of OFA scope?

Regards,
Gilad Shainer 
Vice President, Marketing 
Mellanox Technologies 
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100, Sunnyvale CA, 94085
Office: 408-916-0048, Mobile: 408-421-0048, Fax: 408-585-0348 

-----Original Message-----
From: mwg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:mwg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Ryan, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:05 AM
To: Paul Grun; Bernard Metzler
Cc: OFA Marketing Working Group (mwg at lists.openfabrics.org); ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: Re: [mwg] [ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF

Gilad and Paul and Bernard, I strongly support this position. We have a duly chartered WG doing the work the Board has approved. They're doing their work to the benefit of the OFA and not at the expense of any other WG. 

I'm dismayed to see this discussion going on after all this time

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: mwg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:mwg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grun
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 9:35 AM
To: Bernard Metzler
Cc: OFA Marketing Working Group (mwg at lists.openfabrics.org); ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: Re: [mwg] [ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF

This is a good suggestion.  

Nobody, to my knowledge, has suggested that verbs should not be extended.  But the decision to extend verbs is entirely independent of the work being done in OFI (including DS/DA).

We've had this discussion a number of times, harkening back to the origins of OFI in 2013.  There have been several presentations given on extending verbs, which resulted in the creation of OFV WG.  There is widespread consensus that the OFA should continue to support and develop verbs.

Nevertheless, the conclusion has remained throughout that there is demand for an API at a higher level abstraction than verbs.

Let's be clear once again:  The OFI effort is NOT about killing verbs; it is about expanding the OFA's portfolio.

-Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernard Metzler [mailto:BMT at zurich.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 9:15 AM
To: Paul Grun
Cc: OFA Marketing Working Group (mwg at lists.openfabrics.org); ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org; Gilad Shainer
Subject: RE: [ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF

So, the caption of that slide is probably misleading. ibverbs as an interface is in fact being extended in the OFV WG. I suggest not to do a comparative discussion with ibverbs here at all, but lay out the facts the group thinks matter to make kfabrics a good fit.

Caption: kfabrics benefits.

o transport neutral
o minimal requirements on endpoint resources o no heavyweight connection mechanism for local NVM access


Thanks,
Bernard.


From:	Paul Grun <grun at cray.com>
To:	Bernard Metzler <BMT at zurich.ibm.com>, Gilad Shainer
            <Shainer at Mellanox.com>
Cc:	"ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org" <ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org>,
            "OFA Marketing Working Group (mwg at lists.openfabrics.org)"
            <mwg at lists.openfabrics.org>
Date:	08/11/2015 05:53 PM
Subject:	RE: [ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF



I, too, agree.  The comments about verbs in the BoF proposal are based on this slide, currently being developed by DS/DA:

(Embedded image moved to file: pic11582.jpg)

OFI WG came to a similar set of conclusions.   I strongly support the work
going on in OFV WG.  OFV WG is not mentioned in the BoF proposal at all.
-Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernard Metzler [mailto:BMT at zurich.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 8:41 AM
To: Gilad Shainer
Cc: Paul Grun; ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org; OFA Marketing Working Group
(mwg at lists.openfabrics.org)
Subject: Re: [ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF

Gilad, I agree.

We as an alliance comprising multiple working groups should never promote public bashing among those groups. This should not preclude constructive discussion though.

Thanks,
Bernard.



From:   Gilad Shainer <Shainer at Mellanox.com>
To:     Paul Grun <grun at cray.com>, "ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org"
            <ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org>
Cc:     "OFA Marketing Working Group \(mwg at lists.openfabrics.org\)"
            <mwg at lists.openfabrics.org>
Date:   08/10/2015 05:24 PM
Subject:        Re: [ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF
Sent by:        ofiwg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org



Thanks for sending Paul.

I am not sure I understand why you suggest that the verbs API is not something that fit the needs of applications. The API was created with the RDMA network architecture to meet the needs of applications and it is proven in many systems installations, and it supports both InfiniBand and Ethernet. OFI is yet to be proved on a single system.

As long as OFA supports the development of OFI and OFV, I think that we need to be careful not to have negative view on neither  of them. If you want to focus on OFI that is fine, but there is no need to say it is the better option. The opposite can also be said.

Regards,
Gilad Shainer
Vice President, Marketing
Mellanox Technologies
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100, Sunnyvale CA, 94085
Office: 408-916-0048, Mobile: 408-421-0048, Fax: 408-585-0348

From: mwg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [ mailto:mwg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grun
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 12:22 AM
To: ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
Cc: OFA Marketing Working Group (mwg at lists.openfabrics.org)
Subject: [mwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF

Comments and feedback are encouraged and welcomed.
-Paul

Cray Inc.
Office:    (503) 620-8757
Mobile:  (503) 703-5382
_______________________________________________
ofiwg mailing list
ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/mailman/listinfo/ofiwg


_______________________________________________
mwg mailing list
mwg at lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/mailman/listinfo/mwg

To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
_______________________________________________
mwg mailing list
mwg at lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/mailman/listinfo/mwg

To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general

More information about the ofiwg mailing list