The Leading Source for Global News and Information Covering the Ecosystem of High Productivity Computing
August 18, 2006
Do you remember VIA, the Virtual Interface Architecture? I do. In 1998, according to its promoters -- Intel, Compaq, and Microsoft -- VIA was supposed to change the face of high-performance networking. VIA was a buzzword at the time; Venture Capital was flowing, and startups multiplying. Many HPC pundits were rallying behind this low-level programming interface, which promised scalable, low-overhead, high-throughput communication, initially for HPC and eventually for the data center. The hype was on and doom was spelled for the non-believers.
It turned out that VIA, based on RDMA (Remote Direct Memory Access, or Remote DMA), was not an improvement on existing APIs to support widely used application-software interfaces such as MPI and Sockets. After a while, VIA faded away, overtaken by other developments.
VIA was eventually reborn into the RDMA programming model that is the basis of various InfiniBand Verbs implementations, as well as DAPL (Direct Access Provider Library) and iWARP (Internet Wide Area RDMA Protocol). The pundits have returned, VCs are spending their money, and RDMA is touted as an ideal solution for the efficiency of high-performance networks.
However, the evidence I'll present here shows that the revamped RDMA model is more a problem than a solution. What's more, the objective that RDMA pretends to address of efficient user-level communication between computing nodes is already solved by the two-sided Send/Recv model in products such as Quadrics QsNet, Cray SeaStar (implementing Sandia Portals), Qlogic InfiniPath, and Myricom's Myrinet Express (MX).
Send/Recv versus RDMA
The difference between these two paradigms, Send/Receive (Send/Recv) and RDMA, resides essentially in the way to determine the destination buffer of a communication.
In fact, most high-speed interconnects support both Send/Recv and RDMA (Put/Get) programming models, but the Send/Recv implementations of RDMA-based fabrics often lack a rich matching capability, which is a key element.
Matching
MPI is a two-sided interface with a large matching space: a MPI Recv is associated with a MPI Send according to several criteria such as Sender, Tag, and Context, with the first two possibly ignored (wildcard). Matching is not necessarily in order and, worse, a MPI Send can be posted before the matching MPI Recv is ready, creating the need to handle unexpected messages.
It is trivial to layer a Send/Recv interface on top of another Send/Recv interface as long as its matching space is wide enough. MPI requires 64 bits of matching information, and MX, Portals, and QsNet provide such a matching capability.
Page: 1 of 5(Digg, Technorati, more)
Jul 09 | Engineer Live | The demand for computational tools to underpin the 3D seismic interpretation process has never been more apparent. Read more...
Jul 08 | EE Times | Unemployment for U.S. engineers has reached record levels, according to government figures. Read more...
Jul 08 | Network World | Global spending for 2009 projected to drop 6 percent, for a total of $3.2 trillion. Read more...
Jul 08 | Linux Magazine | Portability or efficiency? Neither is guaranteed when writing explicit parallel code. Read more...
Jul 07 | Ars Technica | Japanese company builds custom ASIC to accelerate real-time ray traced rendering for the auto industry. Read more...
Apr 14 | | Many HPC IT departments are feeling the rising pressure to deliver more capacity computing and performance while trying to reduce the total cost of ownership. This white paper discusses how an environmentally-friendly and open-standards HPC building block based computing system using flexible interconnect options helps address capacity computing needs.
Source: Addison Snell, GM/VP, Tabor Research; sponsored by Dell
Many organizations that could benefit from the use of HPC clusters find that it is complicated to get the systems up and running because of limited IT resources or the complexities of the clusters themselves. Learn how the Intel Cluster Ready program, for which Dell was an original partner, seeks to address this challenge for entry level and mid-range HPC users.
BlueArc's Titan architecture represents an evolutionary step in file servers by creating a hardware-based file system that can scale bandwidth, IOPS, and overall data capacity well beyond conventional software-based devices. With its ability to virtualize a massive storage pool of up to four usable petabytes of tiered storage, Titan can scale with growing data requirements, offering a competitive advantage for businesses, researchers, or other enterprises seeking to better manage data growth while still ensuring optimal performance.
Sun Studio Compilers and Tools and Sun HPC ClusterTools allow you to create high performance parallel applications for OpenSolaris, Solaris and Linux. Sun Studio Express 11/08 includes MPI performance analysis capabilities and full OpenMP 3.0 compiler support. Learn about all this and the latest in Sun HPC ClusterTools 8.1.