On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 08:28:25PM -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > But you overload the switch the SM is connected to with processing > > N*limit DR SMPs rather than just 'limit' SMPs. That is what concerns > > me. > > As I said, the current algorithm is worse as it sends N*no limit DR > SMPs (where no limit means any needed blocks). Not sure that VL15 > droppage due to this has been identified. So I think this improves on > what's been deployed and seemingly works in OpenSM for quite some time > now.
Hmm, OK I didn't realize that. I've heard of reports of VL15 droppage in real networks, maybe this is why.. > > I first implemented an algorithm like this for switches based on Gamla > > chips, and then for Anafa. If something doesn't support it, it is > > very uncommon. > > I'm aware of at least two very different switches where this is the case. Well, that's horrible - but again, I personally have a hard time caring if using LID routing gives even a 5% reduction in setup time with compliant devices. I suppose if you really cared it would be asy to black list certain devices. > Understood; that's what I meant when I wrote below that it's harder > and more expensive computationally. I think that it's also overly > pessimistic so the number might want to be made artificially higher > based on experience that these SMPs can be pipelined quite a bit more > than this would allow. That is highly device dependent - some devices have more CPU SMP buffering than others and this affects things greatly. Jason _______________________________________________ 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
