4 ms·
InfiniBand needs to die, rather than continue being the walking corpse it is today. Ethernet won. (Please spare me the technical dissertation on IB's advantag
by insaneirish 12y ago
InfiniBand needs to die, rather than continue being the walking corpse it is today.
Ethernet won.
(Please spare me the technical dissertation on IB's advantages; I've worked on large systems that simultaneously used IB and Ethernet, and IB was/is continually nightmare.)
- knappe 12y agoSo nice of you to cut off any discussion while making a controversial point. I had this same debate the other day taking with one of the people who worked on the Janus [0] buildout. The conclusion was that ethernet hasn't won. If you need the performance Infiniband is your choice. [0] https://www.rc.colorado.edu/node/212 https://www.rc.colorado.edu/node/212
- itchyouch 12y agoWorking with both IB and 10g, the latency numbers provided by the azure IB setup are in-line with what a 10g kernel-bypass Ethernet setup can do. Ib's main performance advantage comes from the userspace message processing as opposed to any inherent advantage of IB itself as opposed to ethernet. Kernel bypass Ethernet also doesn't require recompilation or rewriting the networking stack. Plain ol' socket programs in any language can get a boost by enabling kernel bypass. I'd say that IB had the first mover advantage and is now entrenched in HPC, but if it's just HPC, then it remains to be seen if the HPC market is big enough to support IB on its own.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- kaib 12y agoI'm actually interested in a bit more detail as well. I've seen a few different fabrics in production (including proprietary non-public ones) and while I'm not sure IB is the answer Ethernet certainly has quite a few performance limitations.