On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 01:32:06PM +0300, Eli Dorfman wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Hal Rosenstock hal.rosenst...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Slava Strebkov sla...@voltaire.com wrote:
In addition to the original proposal we suggest allocating special MLID
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Hal Rosenstock hal.rosenst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Slava Strebkov sla...@voltaire.com wrote:
In addition to the original proposal we suggest allocating special MLID
for the following MGIDs:
1. FF12401b - All
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Eli Dorfman dorfman@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Hal Rosenstock hal.rosenst...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Slava Strebkov sla...@voltaire.com wrote:
In addition to the original proposal we suggest allocating special
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Hal Rosenstock hal.rosenst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Eli Dorfman dorfman@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Hal Rosenstock hal.rosenst...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Slava Strebkov
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Eli Dorfman dorfman@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Hal Rosenstock hal.rosenst...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Eli Dorfman dorfman@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Hal Rosenstock
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Eli Dorfman dorfman@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Hal Rosenstock hal.rosenst...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Eli Dorfman dorfman@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Hal
-Original Message-
From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:hal.rosenst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:58 PM
To: Slava Strebkov
Cc: general@lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: [RFC] OpenSM and IPv6 Scalability Proposal
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Slava Strebkov sla
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Slava Strebkov sla...@voltaire.com wrote:
In addition to the original proposal we suggest allocating special MLID
for the following MGIDs:
1. FF12401b - All Nodes
2. FF12401b0001 - All hosts
3.
Hi Sasha,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 09:39 +0300, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
Hi Hal,
On 06:03 Sat 07 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
1. Change the current underlying multicast tree from being MLID based
to MGID based. This involves using fleximap rather than qmap. The
downside of this is
On 07:01 Mon 16 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
Is a 16K array of pointers preferable to some map ?
I would think so, but didn't check deeply. And in fact actual size of
such array can be limited by max supported number of MLIDs in a fabric
(which is just 1K today).
Sasha
On 07:48 Mon 16 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
I would think so, but didn't check deeply. And in fact actual size of
such array can be limited by max supported number of MLIDs in a fabric
Is that really a good idea to limit it in this way ? Guess it could be
limited with some
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 18:07 +0300, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
On 07:48 Mon 16 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
I would think so, but didn't check deeply. And in fact actual size of
such array can be limited by max supported number of MLIDs in a fabric
Is that really a good idea to
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 18:07 +0300, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
I meant something else - any multicast stuff will be processed in SM
after initial subnet discovery, so it is not a big problem to detect
max needed array size in run-time.
This already exists: max_multicast_lid_ho
-- Hal
On 08:26 Mon 16 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 18:07 +0300, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
On 07:48 Mon 16 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
I would think so, but didn't check deeply. And in fact actual size of
such array can be limited by max supported number of
On 08:33 Mon 16 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
This already exists: max_multicast_lid_ho
Right.
Sasha
___
general mailing list
general@lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 18:51 +0300, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
On 08:26 Mon 16 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 18:07 +0300, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
On 07:48 Mon 16 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
I would think so, but didn't check deeply. And in fact actual size
On 09:06 Mon 16 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
If 16K array of pointers is OK, is a 48K array ? If so, then this should
be straightforward to change.
Looks like a good idea for me.
Sasha
___
general mailing list
general@lists.openfabrics.org
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 19:08 +0300, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
On 09:06 Mon 16 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
If 16K array of pointers is OK, is a 48K array ? If so, then this should
be straightforward to change.
Looks like a good idea for me.
It would need to be based on min of the
On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 08:02 -0700, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
In terms of IB routers, if an MLID was overloaded, wouldn't they
filter on scope as well (link local scope would be filtered), right ?
Should have said not forward rather than filter on link local scope as
these might be locally
19 matches
Mail list logo
