1. Technical Field
The present invention relates generally to networks of computer systems, and more specifically, to a distributed operating system over a network of computer systems.
2. Related Art
An operating system (OS) is system software responsible for the control and management of computer resources. A typical OS enables communication between application software and the hardware of a computer. The OS allows applications to access the hardware and basic system operations of a computer, such as disk access, memory management, task scheduling, and user interfacing. Additionally, an OS is also responsible for providing network connectivity.
Computer networking provides a mechanism for sharing files and peripheral devices among several interconnected computers. Ideally, a computer network should allow all computers and applications to have access to all the resources of the network, optimizing the collective resources. To achieve this result, distributed operating systems have been developed. A typical distributed OS, however, suffers a variety of limitations. First, a distributed OS may be as a multi-layered system: one layer for the local environment, and a separate layer for the network environment. This results in two different operating systems having to be learned by developers and users. In addition, because the interfaces with the local and network layers are significantly different, an application program may be written to operate on one layer or the other, but can not be written to operate on both. That is, network versions of application programs may not run on individual computers and stand-alone versions may not run on networks.
Additionally, network software handles client computers and servers as different machines. If a user wishes to have a central computer provide files to a number of remote computers, then the central computer must be designated as a server, and the remote computers as clients. This may limit the flexibility of the network, because server and client computers are given different abilities by the operating system. For example, it may not be possible for two computers to share files with one another because one must be designated as the server, and the other the client. Generally the server may not access files stored on the client.
Computer network systems have been designed and optimized to handle a specified set of resources and configurations. For example, a mainframe computer system may comprise a mainframe computer with a large memory storage area and set of printers. Smaller terminals or computers may access this mainframe as clients in a manner specific to the network and software. Such a computer system may not have the flexibility to exploit communication developments as the Internet.
Message passing distributed operating systems have been developed to overcome these problems. An exemplary message passing operating system is described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,876 to van der Veen, et al. (“van der Veen et al.”), the disclosure of which is herein incorporated by reference. van der Veen et al. describes a distributed operating system with a single level architecture that may be applied to a flexible network environment, including an internet communication link, and to a stand-alone computer. This is done by use of a message passing operating system, and by sending off-node messages to network managers that are capable of directing and receiving the off-node messages.
In addition, interprocess control (IPC) in these systems should be reliable. Unfortunately, some prior distributed operating systems suffer transmission performance limitations dictated by their inability to (1) reliably handle transient communication failures and rapid node reboots, (2) provide a transmission protocol that adapts to link reliability, and (3) allow transmissions to occur over an arbitrary combination of media. Because nodes often may be connected through third party communication networks, such as the internet, it may be impossible to guarantee the integrity of physical communication lines between nodes. Transient communication failures can lock client processes, wasting resources and hampering the overall performance of the system.
Therefore a need exists for a reliable method for managing communications between nodes of a distributed message passing operating system that may improve the reliability of processing during transient communication failures and rapid node reboots, improve the performance of data transmission through an adaptive protocol that adapts to link flexibility and/or abstracts media selection to allow various policies to be implemented over arbitrary combinations of communication links.
A method of managing communications in a distributed operating system to overcome transmission performance limitations dictated by an inability to (1) reliably handle transient communication failures and rapid node reboots, (2) provide a transmission protocol that adapts to link reliability, and (3) allow transmissions to occur over an arbitrary combination of media is disclosed. The systems and methods described herein provide a reliable node-to-node session protocol that offers high performance message delivery and multi-interface management and support. This is done by transmitting all data between two nodes of the operating system over a single connection that may dynamically exploit multiple interfaces between the nodes. Various media selection policies also may be implemented to allow a user to specify interfaces for a particular data transmission.
Other systems, methods, features and advantages of the invention will be, or will become, apparent to one with skill in the art upon examination of the following figures and detailed description. It is intended that all such additional systems, methods, features and advantages be included within this description, be within the scope of the invention, and be protected by the following claims.
The invention can be better understood with reference to the following drawings and description. The components in the figures are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead being placed upon illustrating the principles of the invention. Moreover, in the figures, like referenced numerals designate corresponding parts throughout the different views.
An exemplary physical layout for implementing a distributed operating system is shown in
The local computer system 110 of
The local message passing operating system 118 and local network manager 124 may be software programs that generally are stored in an executable form on a computer readable medium such as a random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), optical disk (CD-ROM) or magnetic storage medium (hard drive or portable diskette). The local operating system 118 and local network manager 124 also may be implemented by hardware or other means known in the art.
The local message passing operating system 118 may be accessible to each of the local processors 160, 120 and 122. In addition to message passing as a means of interprocess control, the operating system generally provides such capabilities as data input and output, and timing services, which may be provided via external subroutines stored on similar memory media. The message passing operating system handles communication between each of the processors 160, 120 and 122, and the local network manager 124 by setting up communication channels and connections between them.
The remote computer system 112 has a similar arrangement, including a message passing operating system kernel 126, a remote server 128, and a remote network manager 130. In this arrangement, the three devices shown, the message passing operating system kernel 126, remote server 128, and remote network manager 130, may communicate messages between one another via a message passing network 132, while the remote network manager 130 may communicate with the local network manager 124 via the communication network 140. The components of this remote network 112 will have similar features to the corresponding components in the local network 110.
Similar to the local network 110, the arrangement of the remote network 112 is intended only as an example with which to describe the invention. Clearly, an infinite number of arrangements may be created, which would be known to one skilled in the art. At one end of the spectrum, a network could comprise two processors on a single circuit board, interconnected so that they could communicate with one another. Or, a network could comprise thousands of processors located around the world, interconnected over various types of communication links. The term “remote” is used to mean apart; it is not meant to convey any spatial or distance information.
The distributed operating system handles message passing from the local client processor 160 to the remote server 128 in two stages. The client side 110 essentially treats the local network manager 124 as an artificial server to the local client processor 160. Similarly, the remote network manager 130 generates virtual messages that it passes to the remote server 128; the remote network manager 130 acts like a client to the remote server 128.
The local and remote operating systems 118 and 126 are known in the art as message passing operating systems. For example, message passing may provide interprocess control (IPC) throughout the entire system. In general, a message is a packet of bytes passed from one process to another with no special meaning attached to the content of the message. The data in a message has meaning for the sender of the message and for its receiver, but for no one else.
Message passing not only allows processes to pass data to each other, but also provides a means of synchronizing the execution of several processes. As they send, receive, and reply to messages, processes undergo various “changes of state” that affect when and for how long, they may run. Knowing their states and priorities, the operating systems 118 and 126, can schedule all processes as efficiently as possible to optimize the available processor resources.
On the client side, computer system 110, the application running on the local client 160 knows the off-node address of the remote server 128. The local kernel operating system 118 can recognize any message as an off-node message when it does not have a corresponding local mapping for the node identification. The operating system 118 may consider unrecognized messages to be off-node, and may direct such messages to local client's 160 connection to the local network manager 124 that operates including threads and processes, both of which are known in the art. A thread is a conveniently sized collection of programming steps that are scheduled and executed as a group. A process, on the other hand, can be thought of as a “container” for threads, defining the address space within which threads will execute. A process contains at least one thread.
Message passing is directed towards channels 164 and connections, rather than targeted directly from thread to thread. A thread that wishes to receive messages first creates a channel 164, and another thread that wishes to send a message to that thread must first make a connection to that channel 164 by “attaching” to the channel. Various means of implementing the transmission of the message between the local client processor 160 and the local network manager 124 are known to one skilled in the art, and the invention is not limited to the transmissions via the channels and connections discussed herein.
Channels 164 are implemented by the message kernel calls and are used by servers to receive messages. Connections created by client threads “connect” to the channels made available by servers. Once connections are established, clients can send messages over the connection. If a number of threads in a process attach to the same channel 164, then a single connection may be shared between the threads. Channels 164 and connections may be named within a process by a small integer identifier. Client connections may map directly into file descriptors.
A channel 164 may have three queues associated with it: one for threads waiting for messages, one for threads that have sent a message that have not yet been received, and one for threads that have sent a message that has been received, but not yet replied to. While in any of these queues, the waiting thread is blocked. In other applications, a channel 164 may be arranged in a different manner.
This message blocking generally follows the state diagram of
While this blocking scheme ensures processing synchronization, problems may occur if there is a temporary failure in the communication network 140 during which a remote network manager 130 attempts to transmit a reply to a local network manager 124. If the outage persists for a sufficient duration, the transport layer will eventually stop trying to transmit the reply. Because the remote network manager 130 cannot communicate to the local network manager 124 that the reply failed to be delivered, the local client 160 will remain reply-blocked forever. It should be noted that the reply-blocking problem may occur regardless of the underlying communication error. For example, the communication outage may be triggered by a rapid reboot of the server node, buffer overruns, physical disconnection from the network, and the like.
The flow chart in
The term “transmission” has been used to describe the transfer of a message from one device to another. The term is used generally and to prevent confusion with the message types “send” and “receive.” Also, and as noted above, the communication network 14 between the local and remote network managers 124 and 130 may take a number of forms as known in the art, as only a message need be communicated. For example, the transmission of 360 may be implemented using a TCP/IP protocol network.
To implement the method outlined in
The remote network manager 130 may have a similar arrangement, including a remote kernel interface layer 440, a remote media selection 450 layer, and a remote transport layer 460 that may include an instance 462 and an instance 464 for each network interface. These remote layers 440, 450 and 460 may perform corresponding functions on the remote computer system 112 as the corresponding local layers 410, 420 and 430 of the local computer system 110. Although the functionalities described herein are described as corresponding to particular layers of the local network manager 124 and the remote network manager 130, these functionalities may be provided in a nearly infinite number of ways using known techniques.
As described above, initially a local node may generate a transmit request to a remote node. The transmit request may be treated as an array of bytes of arbitrary length, and may include a node descriptor corresponding to the remote node. Transmit requests may be received by the local network manager 124, for example, by the local kernel interface layer 410. The local kernel interface layer 410 may then pass the request to the local media selection layer 420 which may determine if a node-to-node connection exists for the remote node and create a new node-to-node connection if none exists. The local media selection layer 420 may maintain a transmit connection structure for each remote node of the system. The transmit connection structures may be used to control state information and the like for the connection between the local and remote nodes, and may be stored internal to the local media selection layer 420. The transmit connection structures may be maintained in a link list indexed by node descriptor so that the local media selection layer 420 may quickly determine if a transmit connection structure exists for the remote node referenced in the request. Alternatively, other data structures, such as hashed linked lists and the like, may be used to maintain the transmit connection structures.
The transmit connection structure may include components corresponding to a connection state, a pair of node descriptors, a pair of connection identifiers, and head and tail pointers. Other components may be added or substituted. The connection state component may comprise a data structure that defines the state of the connection. For example, a connection may have one of multiple states corresponding to packets used to establish the node-to-node connection, described in more detail below. The pair of node descriptors may correspond to node descriptors for the local and remote nodes. For example, the pair may include the local node's node descriptor for the remote node and the remote node's node descriptor for the local node. Exemplary data fields of a transmit connection structure are shown in Table 1.0.
The pair of connection identifiers may be identifiers used for connection management as described below. The pair of connection identifiers may be monotonically increasing counters generated by the media selection layers 420 and 450 to uniquely identify a connection between two nodes such that each connection may have a unique node descriptor and connection identifier pair. The connection identifiers may be generated when the local media selection layer 420 creates a transmit connection structure. Alternatively, the connection identifiers may be generated in any known manner. For example, the connection identifiers may be based on the boot date and/or time of the local and remote computer system 110 and 112, respectively.
The head and tail pointers may define a linked list of transmit requests for the connection to ensure in-order transmission of transmit requests for each node. Alternatively, other known techniques may be used to implement in-order transmission of transmit requests for each node. When creating a new transmit connection structure, the head and tail pointers may point to the initial transmit request, queuing the request even before the connection is established to guarantee that the initial transmit request will be serviced first. An exemplary transmit request is shown below in Table 2.0.
Once a transmit connection structure has been identified or created, connection management packets are transmitted between the local node and the remote node to establish the node-to-node connection. The connection management packets types may correspond to the state of a connection, and may include the pair of node descriptors and pair of connection identifiers used to uniquely identify a connection. Example connection management packets may include TCS_INIT packets sent by a local node for initiating a connection, TCS_REM_UP packets sent by the remote node to indicate that a connection has been established, TCS_UP packets sent by the local node for polling an active connection, and TCS_DOWN and TCS_REM_DOWN packets sent by the local and remote node, respectively, to tear down an existing connection. Connections may be one-way connections that only allow the local or initiator node to transmit data packets over the connection; although connection management packets may be transmitted by either the local or remote node. Accordingly, a connection may only have a state of TCS_INIT or TCS_UP.
An exemplary flow chart depicting typical connection management packet flows is shown in
Upon receipt of the TCS_INIT packet, the remote node may determine if a transmit receive structure exists for the local node and connection referenced in the TCS_INIT packet at step 504. The transmit receive structure may include similar elements as a transmit connection structure except that it may be indexed by the node descriptor included in the TCS_INIT packet. If no transmit receive structure exist for the local node, which should normally be the case, the remote node may create a transmit receive structure and transmit a TCS_REM_UP packet back to the local node at step 506. The TCS_REM_UP packet may include the node descriptor and connection identifier from the TCS_INIT packet as well as the remote node's node descriptor for the local node and the remote node's connection identifier. Thus, a TCS_REM_UP packet includes complete pairs of node descriptor's and connection identifiers. An exemplary TCS_REM_UP packet may include a connection identifier pair having values of 4 and 3.
In response to the TCS_REM_UP packet, the local node may determine if a transmit connection structure corresponding to the node descriptor and connection identifier pair exists at step 512. If the referenced structure exists, the local node may determine if the remote connection identifier field of the existing structure is empty at step 516. If the value is empty, the local node may update the referenced transmit connection structure with the new node descriptor and connection identifier at step 520. For example, the transmit connection structure may be updated to include connection identifiers 4 and 3. At this point, a connection may be considered established and the connection has a state of TCS_UP. The local node may transmit data packets over the connection at step 522. Similarly, the remote node may receive data packets over the connection. Either node may then tear down the connection at any point by transmitting a TCS_DOWN or TCS_REM_DOWN packet.
In certain situations, errors may occur in the connection management process. For example, a transmit receive structure may already exist for node descriptor referenced in the TCS_INIT packet. If the remote node already has a pre-existing transmit receive structure, two cases are possible. First, the existing transmit receive structure may have the same connection identifier as the TCS_INIT packet. The remote node may have a pre-existing transmit receive structure including a matching connection identifier for several reasons. For example, a duplicate TCS_INIT could be generated by the local node or somewhere else on the communication network 140. Alternatively, the local node may have been rebooted and have no knowledge (i.e., state information) of the existing node-to-node connection but nonetheless has regenerated the same connection identifier as the old connection. Alternatively, the pre-existing structure may include a non-matching connection identifier which again indicates that the connection is out of sync.
If a pre-existing transmit receive structure exists, the remote node may tear down the existing connection regardless of the cause of the problem by transmitting a TCS_REM_DOWN packet at step 508. The TCS_REM_DOWN packet may include either a single node descriptor and connection identifier and is treated by the local node as a command to tear down the referenced connection. The local node may tear down a connection, for example, by deleting its transmit connection structure for the connection and cleaning up any other state information associated with the connection at step 510. The local node may then attempt to reestablish the connection. Alternatively, the connection identifier may be used to determine the cause of the problem. If the cause of the problem is harmless, for example, if the TCS_INIT packet is a duplicate packet, the pre-existing connection may be used for data transmission.
Similar errors may also occur when a TCS_REM_UP packet is received by the local node. As described above, the TCS_REM_UP packet includes complete pairs of node descriptors and connection identifier, i.e., the local node's pair and the remote node's pair. If the local node does not have a transmit connection structure corresponding to the referenced local node descriptor and connection identifier pair, the nodes are out of sync and a TCS_DOWN packet may be transmitted to the remote node to close the connection at step 514. In response to the TCS_DOWN packet, the remote node may destroy the referenced transmit receive structure, clean up any remaining state information, and the like at step 524. Alternatively, the local node may have an existing transmit connection structure for the remote node. In the normal case described above, the local node's transmit connection structure may not include a remote node descriptor and connection identifier, or those components may be set to default values, such as 0. However, due to duplicate packets or reboots, the transmit connection structure may include values for the remote node descriptor and connection identifier pair. In this case, the local node may destroy the existing transmit connection structure at step 518 and tear down the connection by transmitting a TCS_DOWN packet at step 514. Alternatively, if the cause of the error is determined to be harmless, the pre-existing connection may be updated and used for data transmission.
After a connection has been established, transmit requests may be serviced by the local network manager 124, for example, by establishing user-level connections and transmitting data over the user-level connections, as described above. Transmit requests for a particular node may be serviced in order by the local network manager. This may be accomplished, for example, by queuing transmit requests for a particular connection using the head and tail pointers described above. An exemplary structure for queuing transmission requests is shown in Table 2.0. Additionally, a transmit request identifier may be generated that is unique to the node, such as a monotonically increasing counter. Alternatively, the transmit request identifier may be generated using any number of known manners. Transmit request identifiers may be generated, for example, by the local media selection layer 420. As describe above, transmit requests may be treated as arrays of bytes of arbitrary length. Implementing transmit request identifiers allows all user data to be generally handled as a two-dimension array of bytes indexed by transmit request identifiers and offsets.
The relationship between two nodes having a node-to-node connection may be characterized in three ways. First, the nodes may have user-level processes actively communicating. Second, the nodes may have active user-level connections, but are not currently transmitting data. Third, no user-level connections may exist between processes on the nodes. In either of the first two cases, the media selection layer 420 may retain the node-to-node connection. In the third case, however, the media selection layer 420 may tear down the node-to-node connection, for example, if communications have ceased for predefined time. Alternatively, or additionally, other known methods for timing out a connection may be used.
Where more than one interface exists between the local and remote nodes, the local media selection layer 420 also may be responsible for managing the transmission of data packets over the multiple interfaces, such as by maintaining a pool of interfaces, networks and the like. The pool may include only those interfaces or networks which are operational or available, or the pool may include any interface or network. One exemplary method of managing transmissions over multiple network interfaces is shown in the flow chart of
As shown in
The “loadbalance” policy 603 allows the local media selection layer 420 to determine which network interface, or transport layer instance 432 and 434, to transmit data over for each packet. Each packet may be queued on the link that can deliver the packet to the remote node fastest. This effectively provides greater bandwidth between nodes when multiple links are available (the bandwidth may be the sum of the bandwidths of available links) as well as graceful degradation of service as links become unavailable. Accordingly, the local media selection layer 420 may determine the fastest interface 432 and 434 at step 604. The packet may then be transmitted over the determined interface 432 and 434 at step 606. If an error occurs, the local media selection layer may attempt to resend the packet over the next fastest interface. Additionally, the local media selection layer 420 may not attempt to send future packets across the failed interface. The local media selection layer 420 may continue this process for any additional packets at step 610 until the data has been transmitted.
The “preferred” media selection policy 611 allows the user to specify a particular network interface that should be used if it is available. Accordingly, the local media selection layer 420 may attempt to transmit data over the specified interface at step 612, looping at step 618 to transmit additional packets. If the interface becomes unavailable during the transmission (i.e., an error occurs in the transmission) at step 614, the media selection layer 420 may then select another interface 432 and 434 for transmitting the data. For example, the local media selection layer 420 may revert to a default media selection policy. Alternatively, the local media selection layer 420 may select the interface most similar to the preferred link. Multiple preferred interfaces may also be specified so that the media selection layer 420 may attempt to transmit packets over the first interface if available, then the second interface, and so on. Multiple preferences may be specified, for example, by setting a relative performance value of the link. The relative performance value may be based on the performance characteristics of the network, such as maximum bandwidth, average bandwidth, availability of the network, and the like. As shown in
Finally, the “exclusive” media selection preference 619 may allow a user to lock transmission to a specific link. In the event that the “exclusive” link becomes unavailable, the local network manager 124 may not attempt to transmit the data over any other interfaces. Alternatively, multiple “exclusive” 619 interfaces may be specified such that the media selection layer 420 may transmit information only across the specified interfaces. The “exclusive” media selection policy may be used, for example, when an application that moves large amounts of data requires high bandwidth interfaces. Using the “exclusive” media selection policy, the user can limit transmission to only those interface meeting the application's requirements and avoid overloading lower bandwidth interfaces under failure conditions. Again, the policies may be combined so that the media selection layer 420 may “loadbalance” 603 transmission over several “exclusive” 619 interfaces. Referring again to
In order to implement this exemplary media selection method, the local media selection layer 430 may maintain a pool of available interfaces or networks. For example, each transport layer instance 432 and 434 may notify the media selection layer of when its associated interface is down. The media selection layer 430 may then periodically poll the interface to determine when it is again functioning properly. For example, TCS_UP packets including the node descriptor and connection identifier pairs described above may be transmitted across the unavailable interfaces periodically. In response, the remote media selection layer 450 may transmit TCS_REM_UP packets to confirm that the link is once again available.
The local media selection layer 420 also may acquire performance information from the local transport layer 430. This performance information then may be used to select interfaces in accordance with the specified media selection preference. For example, each transport layer instance 432 and 434 may include static and dynamic performance information. Each instance may maintain static performance information such as hardware capabilities and the like. Exemplary dynamic performance information may include byte counts, counts of the currently queued transmission requests and the sizes of those requests, and the like.
After the appropriate interface is selected by the media selection layer 420, data packets may be transmitted by the local transport layer 430 to the remote transport layer 460. A flow chart depicting an exemplary data transmission by the local transport layer 430 is shown in
A flow chart depicting an exemplary data reception by the remote transport layer 460 is shown in
The remote transport layer 460 may continue to receive packets until an entire transmission has been received. The entire transmission may then be passed to the remote media selection layer 450 at step 808 which either performs media connection services or forward user data to the appropriate destination as the case may be. Accordingly, the remote transport layer 460 may determine if the transmission is a single packet transmission at step 806. Single packet transmissions, such as connection management packet and small user data transmissions, may be passed directly to the remote media selection layer 450 for further processing at step 808. A transmission may be designated a single packet transmission by setting both start and end flags in a packet's header. In general, transmissions may be passed to the remote media selection layer 450, for example, by adding the transmission to a queue of received transmissions. The queue may be implemented, for example, as an array of pointers to linked lists of received sequence structures indexed by the bottom X bits of the remote node descriptor. Exemplary data fields of a received packet queue structure are shown in Table 7.0.
If the transmission does include multiple packets, the remote transport layer may reconstruct the transmission at step 810. For example, the transmission may be reconstructed into a received sequence data structure. An exemplary received sequence structure may be implemented as a linked list of received packets for a given node descriptor/connection identifier combination. The received sequence structure also may include elements that define the unique node descriptor and connection identifier for the connection, a physical address, and the like. The remote transport layer 460 may use the connection identifier and sequence number of the received packet may be used to search for a pre-existing received sequence structure at step 812. If needed, a new received sequence structure is allocated and added to the pointer array at step 814, and the received packet then is inserted into the received sequence structure at step 816. The remote transport layer 460 may scan the received sequence structure to insert the packet in sequence, i.e., in order of offset. Alternatively, or additionally, the packet may be inserted into the structure at any location.
Upon receipt of the last packet of a transmission at step 818, as sent by the local network manager 124, the remote transport layer 460 may scan the received sequence structure to verify that the transmission is complete at step 820. The last packet of a transmission may be designated as such via a flag in the header of the packet. If the transmission is complete, the remote transport layer 460 may transmit an ACK packet indicating a successful transfer at step 824. Alternatively, the remote transport layer 460 may transmit a NACK packet indicating that one or more packets of the transmission were lost at step 826. The NACK packet may include a hole list describing the missing packets. An exemplary hole list may be implemented to include the total number of holes in the transmission and a data structure that defines each hole in the list, for example, by describing the hole by an offset and length in the transmission sequence.
Referring again to
While various embodiments of the invention have been described, it will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that many more embodiments and implementations are possible within the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the invention is not to be restricted except in light of the attached claims and their equivalents.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4887204 | Johnson et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
4897781 | Chang et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
5253342 | Blount et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5410709 | Yu | Apr 1995 | A |
5428803 | Chen et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5442785 | Roffe et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5452447 | Nelson et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5548760 | Healey | Aug 1996 | A |
5566302 | Khalidi et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5566337 | Szymanski et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5574903 | Szymanski et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5577251 | Hamilton et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5581705 | Passint et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5590334 | Saulpaugh et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5617568 | Ault et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5634068 | Nishtala et al. | May 1997 | A |
5644719 | Aridas et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5652885 | Reed et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5675795 | Rawson, III et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5694600 | Khenson et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5734898 | He | Mar 1998 | A |
5734903 | Saulpaugh et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5745759 | Hayden et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5764897 | Khalidi | Jun 1998 | A |
5768511 | Galvin et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5787251 | Hamilton et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5790530 | Moh et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5790804 | Osborne | Aug 1998 | A |
5802288 | Ekanadham et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5978912 | Rakavy et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5991820 | Dean | Nov 1999 | A |
6006283 | Hsiech et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6047323 | Krause | Apr 2000 | A |
6049838 | Miller et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6061740 | Ferguson et al. | May 2000 | A |
6064671 | Killian | May 2000 | A |
6131126 | Kougiouris et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6157961 | Kessler et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6167430 | Lurndal | Dec 2000 | A |
6226689 | Shah et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6272629 | Stewart | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6321279 | Bonola | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6353885 | Herzi et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6356904 | Moriyama | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6385659 | Tuel, Jr. | May 2002 | B1 |
6393497 | Arnold et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6412018 | Tuel, Jr. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6415332 | Tuel, Jr. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6434459 | Wong et al. | Aug 2002 | B2 |
6446070 | Arnold et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6466947 | Arnold et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6466996 | Bonola | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6487455 | Balasubramanian | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6487598 | Valencia | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6487607 | Wollrath et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6513049 | Moriyama | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6519594 | Li | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6643650 | Slaughter et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6647423 | Regnier et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6697876 | van der Veen et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6728722 | Shaylor | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6731601 | Krishna et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6748452 | Elphinstone et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757745 | Hamann et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757903 | Havemose | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757904 | Woodruff et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6785892 | Miller et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6789077 | Slaughter et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6789126 | Saulpaugh et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6792466 | Saulpaugh et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6807564 | Zellner et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6847618 | Laursen et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6850979 | Saulpaugh et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6938152 | Shin et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6947417 | Laursen et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6959264 | Mandal | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6981055 | Ahuja et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6981244 | Kathail et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6985951 | Kubala et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6993746 | Hue | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7000075 | Beckert et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7016348 | Laursen et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7036040 | Nicholson et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7051160 | Beckert et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7051326 | Goodman | May 2006 | B2 |
7058955 | Porkka | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7133929 | Shah | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7161939 | Israel et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7174447 | Zimmer et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7724671 | Midtun et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
20020062437 | Shin et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020069302 | Porkka | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020129172 | Baskey et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020147785 | Venkatsubramanian et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020156897 | Chintalapati et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020161848 | Willman et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030002448 | Laursen et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030002477 | Israel et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030002481 | Laursen et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030033427 | Brahmaroutu | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030041096 | Johnson | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030043782 | Laursen et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030097581 | Zimmer | May 2003 | A1 |
20030107996 | Black et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115366 | Robinson | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030236813 | Abjanic | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040019680 | Chao et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040078543 | Koning et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040083317 | Dickson et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040093489 | Hsu | May 2004 | A1 |
20040128201 | Ofir et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143696 | Hsieh | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040216135 | Heimbeck | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040228279 | Midtun et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040236567 | Rothman et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040260919 | Takahashi | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050008017 | Datta et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050044151 | Jiang et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050120117 | Burckart et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050149601 | Cox et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050201272 | Wang et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050229042 | Crowell et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050259671 | Jung et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050268300 | Lamb et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060047875 | Aguilar, Jr. et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060095724 | Singh | May 2006 | A1 |
20060106995 | Shen | May 2006 | A1 |
20060150200 | Cohen et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060182137 | Zhou et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060227703 | Hung et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060259671 | Swartzentruber | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060277285 | Boyd | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060277400 | Veen et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060282654 | Veen et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070097881 | Jenkins et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1 011 244 | Jun 2000 | EP |
1 452 972 | Sep 2004 | EP |
1 517 575 | Mar 2005 | EP |
10-2000-0008628 | Feb 2000 | KR |
WO 0024205 | Apr 2000 | WO |
WO 0128179 | Apr 2001 | WO |
WO 03017601 | Feb 2003 | WO |
Entry |
---|
European Search Report dated Jun. 1, 2007, for corresponding Application No. EP 06 01 0760. |
McKenny, M. et al., “Transporting multiple classes of traffic over a generic routing device—An investigation into the performance of the RapidIO™ interconnect architecture,” 2003 IEEE, pp. 39-44. |
Stress, H., “Abschied vom Bus: RapidIO,” Electronik, vol. 49, No. 24, Nov. 28, 2000, pp. 52-55. |
“Interprocess Communication,” printed from the internet on Aug. 21, 1998, at <http://www-dsg.standford.edu/papers/cachekernel/subsection3—3—2.html>, 4 pages. |
Hollingsworth, J. K. et al., “Dynamic Instrumentation API (proposed) Revision 0.1,” printed from the internet on Aug. 18, 1998, at <http://www.cs.wisc.edu/˜paradyn/dyninstAPl.html>, 9 pages. |
SOLID Server FAQ, printed from the internet on Aug. 18, 1998 at <http://www.solidtech.com/support/faq.htm>, 15 pages. |
Toomey, W., “Lecture—Interprocess Communication (IPC) and Synchronisation,” printed from the internet on Aug. 21, 1998, at <http://www.cs.adfa.oz.au/teaching/studinfo/csa2/OSNotes/node12.html>, 4 pages. |
von Eicken, T. et al., “U-Net: A User-Level Network Interface for Parallel and Distributed Computing,” Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, 1995, pp. 1-14. |
Welsh, M. et al., “Incorporating Memory Management Into User-Level Network Interfaces,” Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, 1997, pp. 1-10. |
Welsh, M. et al., “Shared-Memory Multiprocessor Support for Split-C,” printed from the internet on Aug. 20, 1998, at <http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/˜mdw/p . . . lit-c-smp/design/split-c-smp.html>, 10 pages. |
State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China; Text of the First Office Action; Application No. 200610088515.7, dated Nov. 2, 2011, 11 pages. |
Canadian Office Action regarding CA Application 2,547,880, dated Sep. 5, 2012. |
European Search Report dated Dec. 20, 2006 for corresponding European Application No. 06 021 843.5, 13 pages. |
European Search Report dated Jan. 2, 2007 for European Application No. 06 021 843.5, 9 pages. |
Newton, H., “Newton's Telecom Dictionary,” CMPL Books, 18 ed., Feb. 2002, pp. 216, 390, and 414. |
Office Action dated Sep. 5, 2012 for corresponding Canadian Application No. 2,547,880, 3 pages. |
Office Action dated Jul. 27, 2011 for corresponding Chinese Application No. 200610088516.1, 9 pages. |
Office Action dated Nov. 2, 2011 for corresponding Chinese Application No. 200610088516.1, 12 pages. |
Office Action dated May 31, 2013 for corresponding Korean Application No. 10-2006-0049352, 7 pages. |
Office Action dated Oct. 22, 2012 for corresponding Korean Application No. 10-2006-0049352, 8 pages. |
Office Action dated Mar. 20, 2013 for corresponding Canadian Application No. 2,547,829, 4 pages. |
Office Action dated Nov. 2, 2011 for corresponding Chinese Application No. 200610088515.7, 14 pages. |
Office Action dated Jan. 25, 2013 for corresponding Chinese Application No. 200610088515.7, 12 pages. |
Office Action dated Apr. 11, 2013 for corresponding Chinese Application No. 200610088515.7, 9 pages. |
Rejection Decision dated Apr. 6, 2012 for corresponding Chinese Application No. 200610088515.7, 12 pages. |
Office Action dated Oct. 22, 2012 for corresponding Korean Application No. 10-2006-0049351, 8 pages. |
Office Action dated May 24, 2013 for corresponding Korean Application No. 10-2006-0049351, 10 pages. |
Office Action dated Feb. 23, 2011 for corresponding Canadian Application No. 2,548,509, 5 pages. |
Office Action dated Sep. 9, 2009 for corresponding European Application No. 06011406.3, 1 page. |
Office Action dated Oct. 29, 2012 for corresponding Korean Application No. 10-2006-0049348, 11 pages. |
Office Action dated Jun. 26, 2007 for corresponding Korean Application No. 10-2006-0102205, 4 pages. |
Office Action dated Jun. 3, 2009 for corresponding Canadian Application No. 2,564,573, 5 pages. |
Office Action dated Sep. 1, 2010 for corresponding Indian Application No. 1932/CHE/2006, 2 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20060277284 A1 | Dec 2006 | US |