On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Chris Worley wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> > Chris Worley, on 09/11/2009 11:50 PM wrote:
> >>
> >> I've definitely removed the switch/firmware from being the cause.
> >>
> >> I'm thinking the reason you can't repeat th
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> Chris Worley, on 09/11/2009 11:50 PM wrote:
>>
>> I've definitely removed the switch/firmware from being the cause.
>>
>> I'm thinking the reason you can't repeat the test may be latency
>> related. We get ~50usecs average latency (
Chris Worley, on 09/11/2009 11:50 PM wrote:
I've definitely removed the switch/firmware from being the cause.
I'm thinking the reason you can't repeat the test may be latency
related. We get ~50usecs average latency (on small block sizes),
which can't be achieved using regular SSD's (and rotati
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:32:39 +0530
Keshetti Mahesh wrote:
> My badness. I have not used 'iblinkinfo' before.
> So, I guess there is no need for the above script. Apart from that, I feel
> there should be a program/script which will first scan the fabric to find the
> maximum common supported widt
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:19:06 -0400
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Keshetti Mahesh
> wrote:
>
> > I have a small question. If there are all 5 Gbps (maximum supported
> > speed) ports
> > except one with 10 Gbps in a subnet then what is the expected behavior
> > of OpenSM
