hi Makeisha Look at UFSJ symbol, it unbelivable.
Looks like it start to burn.
___
general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 00:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting Sean Hefty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: RE: [ofa-general] Re: multicast join failed for...
The job will continue running though, and when you diagnose the problem
and disconnect the bad node, rate will be back to high.
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 00:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting Ira Weiny [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: multicast join failed for...
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:16:32 +0300
Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Ira Weiny [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject:
Hi,
There has been a lot of discussion over the last week on failed
multicast joins.
The current default rate for multicast groups is 10 Gbps. This means
that slower nodes (whether due to 1x SDR equipment or a degraded link)
will fail the join.
The current default was chosen in the belief that
Hi Egor,
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 19:09, Egor Tur wrote:
Hi folk.
I see that my small problem has been interesting.
Glad you've been entertained :-)
Thanks for your help.
Rate 6 is 20 Gb/sec whereas 3 is 10 Gb/sec. So the port is 4x DDR (rate
6) and the group is 4x SDR. The request is
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 00:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting Ira Weiny [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: multicast join failed for...
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:16:32 +0300
Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Ira Weiny [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject:
Quoting Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: multicast join failed for...
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 10:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: multicast join failed for...
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 23:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 09:14, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: multicast join failed for...
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 10:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: multicast join failed for...
If the group is created at a lower rate, there would be no problem.
But the default configuration should be plug an play.
So you are arguing for 1x SDR as the default. We've discussed and
disagreed on this before as I think it masks performance issues and
those are harder to find. I could
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 09:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
If the group is created at a lower rate, there would be no problem.
But the default configuration should be plug an play.
So you are arguing for 1x SDR as the default. We've discussed and
disagreed on this before as I think it
So the question is whether the best default is 2.5 Gbps which would
allow any nodes to join or whether the current default is appropriate ?
I know certain people's opinions who have been vocal on this list up to
now. I'm looking for other opinions. Thanks.
Just as a summary of what I was
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 09:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So the question is whether the best default is 2.5 Gbps which would
allow any nodes to join or whether the current default is appropriate ?
I know certain people's opinions who have been vocal on this list up to
now. I'm looking for
Quoting Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: multicast join failed for...
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 09:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
If the group is created at a lower rate, there would be no problem.
But the default configuration should be plug an play.
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 09:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: multicast join failed for...
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 09:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
If the group is created at a lower rate, there would be no problem.
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 09:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: Default multicast group rate
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 09:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So the question is whether the best default is 2.5 Gbps which would
allow any nodes to
On 07:44 Fri 13 Apr , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
Hi,
There has been a lot of discussion over the last week on failed
multicast joins.
The current default rate for multicast groups is 10 Gbps. This means
that slower nodes (whether due to 1x SDR equipment or a degraded link)
will fail the
Micheal,
Will you be able to help me with some of the issues listed below?
Pradeep
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Forwarded by Pradeep Satyanarayana/Beaverton/IBM on 04/13/2007 08:33
AM -
Pradeep Satyanarayana/Beaverton/IBM
04/12/2007 01:58 PM
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL
On 16:50 Fri 13 Apr , Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So the question is whether the best default is 2.5 Gbps which would
allow any nodes to join or whether the current default is appropriate ?
I know certain people's opinions who have been vocal on this list up to
now. I'm looking for other
On 13 Apr 2007 07:37:04 -0400
Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 00:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting Ira Weiny [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: multicast join failed for...
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:16:32 +0300
Michael S. Tsirkin
Hi Bill,
I see that you have me listed for speaking about iWarp. I am clearly the
wrong
person to be speaking on this subject and suggest you solicit someone
from
the iWarp community.
iWARP implementation in OFED Bob Woodruff, Intel
Also, could you please add Jianxin Xiong as a
Never mind, I see Jianxin on the agenda now.
Sorry for the confusion.
woody
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Woodruff,
Robert J
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:16 AM
To: Bill Boas; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Although you may want to consider moving Jianxin's talk to the timeslot
on Tuesday that you had reserved for me for iWarp, as there are
also a lot of other Xen talks on Tues.
Just a suggestion
woody
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Robert J
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:25 AM
To:
OGC are not comming.
Arkady Kanevsky email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Appliance Inc. phone: 781-768-5395
1601 Trapelo Rd. - Suite 16.Fax: 781-895-1195
Waltham, MA 02451 central phone: 781-768-5300
On 16:57 Fri 13 Apr , Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: multicast join failed for...
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 09:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
If the group is created at a lower rate, there would be no problem.
Hi,
Discovery of new storage should not take multiple minutes, at least we haven't
seen this type of behavior. How exactly are you adding the storage (using
ibsrpadm command)? any idea where the delay is occuring, discovery of SRP
targets or adding targets to the system?
Thanks,
Moiz
On
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Karl Feind wrote:
Hello James,
We are trying to find a way for the OpenIB-cma uDAPL layer to coexist
with SGI's xpmem uDAPL on a single system.
Obviously, the installation scriptlets for xpmem uDAPL need to
add lines into /etc/dat.conf when xpmem UDAPL is
I see...
Region 0: Memory at 400c080 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=1M]
Region 2: Memory at 400c000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=8M]
Capabilities: [40] MSI-X: Enable- Mask- TabSize=32
you are running an HCA with the 3rd BAR hidden.
Can you try the patch
Boris,
I downloaded mft tar file and attempted to install it when I saw the
following errors:
/home/tools/mft-1.0.1 # ./install.sh
*** Mellanox Firmware Tools (MFT) Package Installation ***
MFT Build 20060118-1817
Copyright (C) June 2002, Mellanox Technologies Ltd.
ALL RIGHTS
Pradeep,
If you have OFED installed you should have mstflint utility under
/usr/local/ofed/bin
You can use it and save the efforts of building MFT package on your
machine.
Boris
-Original Message-
From: Pradeep Satyanarayana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 3:51
For some reason the patch did not apply. So, I hand patched it and I see a
new Oops now. I will try and upgrade the firmware and see
if these problems go away.
Apr 13 18:53:37 elm3b37 kernel: ib_mthca: Initializing 0002:d9:00.0
Apr 13 18:53:38 elm3b37 kernel: ib_mthca 0002:d9:00.0: HCA FW
I do not have OFED installed on the machine. I guess that will have to be
the first step then. Will let you know
if I run into anything else.
Pradeep
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boris Shpolyansky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/13/2007 03:56:14 PM:
Pradeep,
If you have OFED installed you should have
For some reason the patch did not apply. So, I hand patched it and I see a
new Oops now. I will try and upgrade the firmware and see
if these problems go away.
OK, I see why my patch didn't work... see below for a (I hope) better
revised patch.
Upgrading the firmware may work, simply by
32 matches
Mail list logo
