Maybe avoid the log if -y is provided?
Eitan Zahavi
Senior Engineering Director, Software Architect
Mellanox Technologies LTD
Tel:+972-4-9097208
Fax:+972-4-9593245
P.O. Box 586 Yokneam 20692 ISRAEL
________________________________
From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:56 PM
To: Eitan Zahavi
Cc: OpenFabrics General; Sasha Khapyorsky; Yevgeny Kliteynik
Subject: Re: OpenSM detection of duplicated GUIDs on loopback
On 7/24/07, Eitan Zahavi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Hal,
For many users such a critical failure (one the SM can
not really do anything with) is better aborted then forgotten in some
log file.
Anyway's the -y flag lets you ignore it if you like.
So everything else continues to work fine with -y ? In which
case, I'm not sure which is the better default.
Users certainly won't like their logs filling up with continuous
duplicated GUID messages. The log spew should be cleaned up IMO.
-- Hal
Eitan Zahavi
Senior Engineering Director, Software Architect
Mellanox Technologies LTD
Tel:+972-4-9097208
Fax:+972-4-9593245
P.O. Box 586 Yokneam 20692 ISRAEL
________________________________
From: Hal Rosenstock
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:38 PM
To: Eitan Zahavi
Cc: OpenFabrics General; Sasha Khapyorsky;
Yevgeny Kliteynik
Subject: Re: OpenSM detection of duplicated
GUIDs on loopback
On 7/24/07, Eitan Zahavi <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
wrote:
Hi Hal,
The code to find "duplicated" GUIDs stem
from real user cases where flawed
burning procedure caused actual GUID
duplications. There is nothing "impossible".
No one said impossible; just a violation of what
globally unique (GU from GUID) really means. It's largely because
vendors allowed users to program non volatile RAM for GUIDs rather than
a real manufacturing process for this which guarantees uniqueness that
we are even discussing this aspect of it.
So it is really critical the the SM will
be able to recognize this case and abort.
I agree with the detect part but not the abort
part. Why can't it report these errors and continue on ? That seems
better to me than aborting.
-- Hal
It might be that for testing someone
wants to use a loopback plug that cause the same
port GUID appear on both sides of link -
but it is better to require the user doing the test
to set some flag than to miss such a
situation in real life cluster.
This requirement was written after many
people wasted many hours trying to figure out what was going on.
PLEASE DO NOT TAKE IT AWAY
Eitan Zahavi
Senior Engineering Director, Software
Architect
Mellanox Technologies LTD
Tel:+972-4-9097208
Fax:+972-4-9593245
P.O. Box 586 Yokneam 20692 ISRAEL
________________________________
From: Hal Rosenstock
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:04 PM
To: Eitan Zahavi
Cc: OpenFabrics General; Sasha
Khapyorsky; Yevgeny Kliteynik
Subject: Re: OpenSM detection of
duplicated GUIDs on loopback
On 7/24/07, Eitan Zahavi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
From: Hal Rosenstock
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:53 PM
To: Eitan Zahavi
Cc: OpenFabrics General; Sasha
Khapyorsky; Yevgeny Kliteynik
Subject: Re: OpenSM detection of
duplicated GUIDs on loopback
Hi Eitan,
On 7/24/07, Eitan Zahavi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
Hi Hal,
What is this "loopback" connector used
for?
Does not seem to me like a very useful
thing to do.
Perhaps not but no reason OpenSM can't
handle this more gracefully.
Anyway, if it is not a production
environment we could add a "debug mode" (-d flag option) to ignore this
check.
Why would a separate flag be needed ?
[EZ] Since I do not see any other
solution for the SM to know it is really a loop back plug rather then
two devices with same GUID connected back to back ...
"Technically", this should only occur
when looped back and not two devices with same GUID as GUID == globally
unique and a duplication indicates a "manufacturing" issue.
Anyhow, can't these be treated the same
(and handled more gracefully) without an additional option/flag ?
-- Hal
-- Hal
Eitan Zahavi
Senior Engineering Director, Software
Architect
Mellanox Technologies LTD
Tel:+972-4-9097208
Fax:+972-4-9593245
P.O. Box 586 Yokneam 20692 ISRAEL
________________________________
From: Hal Rosenstock
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:31 PM
To: OpenFabrics General
Cc: Sasha Khapyorsky; Eitan Zahavi;
Yevgeny Kliteynik
Subject: OpenSM detection of duplicated
GUIDs on loopback
Hi,
This is what starts off as a "minor"
issue and I know it has been discussed it somewhat in the past:
Putting a loopback connector on a
(switch) link causes OpenSM to indicate duplicated GUID error 0D18 as
follows:
__osm_ni_rcv_set_links
{
...
/*
When there are only two
nodes with exact same guids (connected back
to back) - the previous
check for duplicated guid will not catch
them. But the link will be
from the port to itself...
Enhanced Port 0 is an
exception to this
*/
if ((osm_node_get_node_guid(
p_node ) == p_ni_context->node_guid) &&
(port_num ==
p_ni_context->port_num) &&
(port_num != 0))
{
osm_log( p_rcv->p_log,
OSM_LOG_ERROR,
"__osm_ni_rcv_set_links: ERR 0D18: "
"Duplicate GUID
found by link from a port to itself:"
"node 0x%" PRIx64
", port number 0x%X\n",
cl_ntoh64(
osm_node_get_node_guid( p_node ) ),
port_num );
...
So this occurs over and over and over
and fills the log with the same spew. This should be improved IMO.
Is this really a fatal condition ?
Doesn't seem like it should be to me.
Also, OpenSM can "ride" this out with -y
(stay on fatal) but is that safe for this condition ?
Seems like something like an extra
loopback bit should be added to some port structure which should cause
these links to be ignored. This bit would then be reset when the peer is
now longer itself.
Also, is there a relationship of this
with the 12x/duplicated GUID code ?
Thanks.
-- Hal
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
