On Feb 10, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote: > The point of the question isn't related to WHY eth8 is useless - just assume > it is. > Assume it is UP, but useless for whatever reasons motivated writing FAQ #220. > It could be Terry's example of a port connected to the service processor. > > The concern is what happens in this situation when the user, following the > advice in the FAQ, passes an explicit setting for btl_tcp_if_exclude, which > DOES NOT include virbr0? > They don't know it was there before, or that it needs to be there (the FAQ > states that lo MUST be included). > So, by following the FAQ they don't resolve their problem. > OMPI ceases any attempts use of eth8 (or whatever), but loss of the implicit > virbr0 from the exclude list results in their system attempting to use virbr0 > (and thus continue to fail). Right? > > Maybe the FAQ just needs an update to address my concern.
Got it. Sure, I can update the faq to be a bit more loose in the definition of what must be excluded. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
