Evaluating design alternatives for reliable communication on high-speed networks

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.