On 5/27/2015 11:31 AM, Jesus Camacho Villanueva wrote: > The switches are unmanaged. > Is it possible to ensure in-order packets with managed switches?
No; same issue as I previously mentioned exists with both. Unmanaged switches just use firmware whereas managed switches have CPU and kernel in addition to firmware so the system is more complex. -- Hal > Jesus > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Hal Rosenstock <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 5/27/2015 10:16 AM, Jesus Camacho Villanueva wrote: >>> Hi Hal, >>> >>> Thanks for your quick response :) >>> >>> What you say here makes sense. I have seen this behaviour in one of >>> the switches, but I don't discard that this problem can arise in other >>> switches. >> >> Note that for MADs, transaction ID is "looser" than traditional >> transaction ID semantics in that "the combination of TID, SGID, and >> MgmtClass is different from that of any currently executing operation" >> and does not imply ordering. If there is ordering required, it is the >> responsibility of the manager to enforce that. >> >>> The switch is: Infiniscale-IV Mellanox Technologies 4xQDR >> >> Is it a managed or unmanaged switch ? >> >> -- Hal > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
