[Beowulf] Spanning Tree Protocol and latency: allowing loops in switching networks for minimizing switch hops
gerry.creager at tamu.edu
Tue Feb 23 15:02:56 EST 2010
On 2/23/10 1:23 PM, Rahul Nabar wrote:
> Over the years I have scrupulously adhered to the conventional wisdom
> that "spanning tree" is turned off on HPC switches. So that protocols
> don't time out in the time STP needs to acquire its model of network
> topology. But that does assume that there are no loops in the switch
> connectivity that can cause broadcast storms etc. Thereby constraining
> the network design to a loopless configuration. Most cases this is
> fine but.....
> In the interest of latency minimum switch hops make sense and for that
> loops might sometimes provide the best solution. Just wondering what
> people think. Does STP enabled have other drawbacks aside from the
> initial lag on port activation? Or maybe all the latency advantage is
> always wiped out if the STP being on itself has some massive overhead.
> Do you always configure switches to not have loops? Or are loops ok
> and then I turn STP ON but just use PortFast to get away with the best
> of both worlds.
It's my firm opinion that loops and STP are evil for HPC installations.
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
More information about the Beowulf