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 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
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
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 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
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
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:21:55 +0300
Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Ira Weiny [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: multicast join failed for...
On 11 Apr 2007 17:45:54 -0400
Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 15:47
Quoting Ira Weiny [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: multicast join failed for...
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:21:55 +0300
Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Ira Weiny [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: multicast join failed
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:16:32 +0300
Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Ira Weiny [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: multicast join failed for...
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:21:55 +0300
Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Ira Weiny [EMAIL
The job will continue running though, and when you diagnose the problem
and disconnect the bad node, rate will be back to high.
So what's the problem?
What would bring the rate back up?
Halting all multicast traffic across the subnet to handle a flaky node wanting
to join some multicast
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.
So what's the problem?
What would bring the rate back up
When the node is diagnosed and disconnected, SM will bring the rate
back up.
But how? Doesn't it require re-registration of all multicast groups and
clients registered for SA events?
As I said, there are tens of ways a bad node can hurt performance,
and we don't/can't handle them. Why focus on
On 11 Apr 2007 17:45:54 -0400
Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 15:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
- previously we had some client failing join
which is worse.
Maybe not. Maybe that's what the admin wants (to keep the higher rate
rather than degrade the group
17 matches
Mail list logo
