Check out #220 now; I updated it. Sent from my phone. No type good.
On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:46 PM, "Jeff Squyres" <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > 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/ > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
