On 03/10/10 04:51 PM, Peter Memishian wrote:
> > > > It seems like this is a bug in Amber Road, best dealt with
> there.
> > >
> > > False.
> >
> > Can you please elaborate. Why is it OK for Amber road to make
> > assumptions about interface naming?
>
> Given that this is an open list, I cannot go into the details of the
> Fishworks clustering architecture. However, broadly speaking, the
> architecture requires that all clustered resources are identical across
> the heads. This is impossible in the current IB architecture because the
> partition datalinks are created by the driver itself based on events that
> are external to the box, and thus there is no way to guarantee that ibd0
> on each head will refer to the same pkey.
>
> However, while Fishworks is the catalyst, as covered in the case
> materials, the work stands on its own and brings IB into line with the
> established administrative model for VLANs/VNICs with Ethernet. That is,
> IB partitions are modeled identically to Ethernet VLANs. This is the
> right answer for a large number of reasons (observability, administrative
> consistency, ability to create partitions when the IB subnet manager is
> down ...) that have nothing to do with Fishworks.
>
> > To be clear, it seems like a particular product is dependent on the
> > names of interfaces. Yet, customers ought to be able to rename those
> > interfaces using vanity names.
>
> When they create the partition, they choose the name. This works
> identically to VLANs, VNICs, aggregations, and so forth. They can
> then rename the link if they want.
>
>
Okay, that last bit was the important part. Thanks for the clarifications.
-- Garrett
