Abstract
We systematically evaluate the performance of five implementations of a single, user-level communication interface. Each implementation makes different architectural assumptions about the reliability of the network hardware and the capabilities of the network interface. The implementations differ accordingly in their division of protocol tasks between host software, network-interface firmware, and network hardware. Using microbenchmarks, parallel-programming systems, and parallel applications, we assess the performance impact of different protocol decompositions. We show how moving protocol tasks to a relatively slow network interface yields both performance advantages and disadvantages, depending on the characteristics of the application and the underlying parallel-programming system. In particular, we show that a communication system that assumes highly reliable network hardware and that uses network-interface support to process multicast traffic performs best for all applications.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
