From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ron minnich To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Multi-stack mail problem. In-Reply-To: <021501c38775$a06801c0$b9844051@insultant.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:18:47 -0600 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 58d2e380-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, boyd, rounin wrote: > checksums? we don't need no stinkin' [UDP] checksums -- Sun well and lots of other people who have been fooled. HP, for example, had a 'smart NIC' in the 80s. Worked great. Except you couldn't ftp certain files. And then there was atm. and hippi 800. and myrinet. and quadrics. I'm sure infiniband will make the same mistake. People keep forgetting: end to end does NOT mean card-to-card. We just saw this the other day on myrinet: a certain data pattern would induce a problem in one out of 2048 links, on one point-to-point link, on one tcp port. Fun to diagnose, as the symptom was a stuck tcp queue. It was a bad switch port. ah well. Networks (and network designers) should stop trying to make promises they can't keep. ron