Hi Al, On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 07:16 -0800, Albert Chu wrote: > Hey Hal, > > Are you saying a flag inside each osm_switch_t to indicate if that > specific switch is balanced?
I wasn't saying anything about implementation. I was saying there could be OpenSM console commands to 1. rebalance, and 2. display relevant state regarding balance/imbalance. > The script I wrote for the balance check did have difficulty determining a > lot of corner cases (is port connected to a CA? is it active? what ports > are up vs. down links, etc.). At the end of the day you just output a lot > of extra info and have to look through it manually. > > Although probably not easy as a whole, these calculations would be easier > in opensm since that information is available. That's what I was suggesting rather than a separate diag script although the latter seems like it would be good too. -- Hal > Al > > > On 05:04 Sun 02 Mar , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > >> On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 22:53 +0000, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: > >> > On 19:59 Fri 29 Feb , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > >> > > > >> > > If that makes sense, then also query commands on this "state" would > >> > > likely also. > >> > > >> > Not sure about this. It is dynamically updated flag, so it would be > >> hard > >> > to catch a "valid" value by hand from the OpenSM console. > >> > >> I was referring to the "balance" state not that flag. Does that make > >> more sense ? > > > > What do you mean? Routing dumps? > > > > Sasha > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ 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
