[ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF
Bernard Metzler
BMT at zurich.ibm.com
Wed Aug 12 09:05:56 PDT 2015
I was referring to the one slide we were all looking at and I agreed with
Gilad that something can be improved there. First , the caption might
suggest the verbs interface is something which is not further enhanced -
which is obviously not true. And with that slide as an example I agree we
should better avoid public direct comparison between WG's work if targeting
the same intended functionality.
As an alliance, we are in quite an interesting situation where two working
groups competing on fulfilling at least overlapping goals. While this
competition may even strengthen overall quality of the groups works, we
should always behave fair in that competition. If one says he feels treated
unfair, all should take that seriously and act accordingly. Changing this
slide to handle those concerns should be no rocket science though.
Best regards,
Bernard.
From: "Ryan, Jim" <jim.ryan at intel.com>
To: Gilad Shainer <Shainer at Mellanox.com>, Paul Grun
<grun at cray.com>, "Bernard Metzler" <BMT at zurich.ibm.com>
Cc: "OFA Marketing Working Group (mwg at lists.openfabrics.org)"
<mwg at lists.openfabrics.org>, "ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org"
<ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org>
Date: 08/12/2015 05:28 PM
Subject: RE: [ofiwg] Draft proposal for the SC15 libfabric BoF
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