Hi Matt,
I would be happy to join the release team as additional Voltaire
representative.
Moni Levy | +972-971-7670(o)
Project Manager, Mainstream IB host stack
Voltaire – The Grid Backbone
http://www.voltaire.com/
On 2/14/06, Tziporet Koren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Matt,
Good
That might be a good idea for also simplifying the test setups bring up process.
I think that we at least need to agree on a reference .config for the
latest kernel to use for common ground.
Moni Levy | +972-971-7670(o)
Project Manager, Mainstream IB host stack
Voltaire – The Grid Backbone
http
On 2/23/06, Bryan O'Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 19:03 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
It seems that the openib release 1.0 as planned will include not only
userspace
libraries but also some kernel level modules.
Yes, I expect so.
While this might be a
On 2/24/06, Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Moni Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
While this might be a good idea for modules such as iSER
which are not currently part of the mainline kernel tree,
it is in my opinion clearly not a good idea to replace the
modules which
On 3/7/06, Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Why is this an enum?
+static int pcix_max_rbc = PCIX_MAX_RBC_INVALID;
Grant It's declared an int and is user visible. I think the
Grant user interface would be better served if the user could
Grant just specify
On 3/13/06, James Lentini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 20:56, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 17:45 -0800, Sean Hefty wrote:
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
libibat
libibat-debuginfo
Hi Sean,
we've thought about possible ways of testing the implementation
of ib_local_sa and tried to estimate the load that it would cause to
the fabric. We did some math about the number of packets that the SM
should be able to handle in a test case of 1k node fabric and it looks
that this
On 4/10/06, Eitan Zahavi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Hal,
-Original Message-
From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 2:00 PM
To: Eitan Zahavi
Cc: Roland Dreier; openib-general@openib.org
Subject: Re: [openib-general] IPoIB interface for
On 4/23/06, Eitan Zahavi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Moni,
Sorry it took me a while to get back to you (was out on vacation ...)
Moni Levy wrote:
On 4/10/06, Eitan Zahavi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Hal,
-Original Message-
From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Ranjit,
BTW, we sent all this information to Moni Levy couple of weeks back.
I guess it's something with my mailbox, because I never received it.
-- Moni
___
openib-general mailing list
openib-general@openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo
On 7/20/06, Tziporet Koren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or Gerlitz wrote:
Hi Tziporet,
Do you have an initial drop of the bonding solution planned for OFED 1.1
that is ready to see the daylight? if not, when is this expected?
As i mentioned to you, we are investigating few possible ways
Hi,
we are doing some performance testing of multicast traffic over
ipoib. The tests are performed by using iperf on dual 1.6G AMD PCI-X
servers with PCI-X Tavor cards with 3.4.FW. Below are the command the
may be used to run the test.
Iperf server:
route add -net 224.0.0.0 netmask 240.0.0.0
implementation.
-- Moni
At 04:30 AM 8/2/2006, Moni Levy wrote:
Hi,
we are doing some performance testing of multicast traffic over
ipoib. The tests are performed by using iperf on dual 1.6G AMD PCI-X
servers with PCI-X Tavor cards with 3.4.FW. Below are the command the
may be used to run
Hi, Tziporet,
On 8/8/06, Tziporet Koren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o iSER:
- Stability
- Testing more platforms (e.g. ppc64 and ia64)
- Performance improvements
Only number two above is in the scope of OFED from our perspective, so
we prefer to have it listed alone.
2.
Sounds like a great idea. We don't have blocking issues, but would be
happy to test the pre-release.
Moni
On 10/16/06, Tziporet Koren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch is already in.
We will publish latest pre-release version tomorrow so everybody can do
latest checks.
Is this OK?
Vlad,
On 10/31/06, Vladimir Sokolovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ramachandra K wrote:
Moni Shoua wrote:
We already tried to go this way and found that a local Module.symvers
is not always generated (but we might have missed something though).
I suggest that you check that this
On 11/10/06, Diego Guella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
Thanks for your answer.
I have installed:
compat-libstdc++ (version 5.0.7-35)
libstdc++-32bit (version 4.1.2_20060705-2)
libstdc++41 (version 4.1.2_20061024-3)
libstdc++41-devel (version 4.1.2_20061024-3)
libstdc++-devel
Tziporet,
On 1/31/07, Tziporet Koren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shaun Rowland wrote:
Hi. I am not exactly sure where the ofed_1_2 directory for MPI SRPMs is
supposed to go. I assume from previous meetings this is just a
filesystem directory. Should it be a directory in my home directory on
Vlad,
# tail -10 /tmp/OFED.10899.log
Wrote:
/var/tmp/OFEDRPM/RPMS/x86_64/ib-bonding-0.9.0-1-rh-x86_64.rpm
Wrote:
/var/tmp/OFEDRPM/RPMS/x86_64/ib-bonding-debuginfo-0.9.0-1-rh-x86_64.rpm
Executing(--clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.98615
+ umask 022
+ cd /var/tmp/OFEDRPM/BUILD
+ rm -rf
Doug,
On 2/7/07, Yosef Etigin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7. On RHAS5 beta 2, the setup requires sysfstuils-devel RPM which is not
included in this distro.
Can you please help us with that ?
-- Moni
--
Yosef Etigin
Alex Tabachnik
___
implementation only queries for the index of the
pkey once, when it creates the device QP and after that moves it into working
state, and hence does not address this scenario. Fix this by using the
PKEY_CHANGE event as a trigger to reconfigure the device QP.
Signed-off-by: Moni Levy [EMAIL
Or,
On 2/19/07, Or Gerlitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Sean,
this fixes a bug which did not allow to run librdmacm apps over a node
which is partial member of a partition. The patch takes the approach of the
kernel ib_find_cached_pkey implementation.
If you approve this, i suggest pushing
On 2/19/07, Moni Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This issue was found during partitioning SM fail over testing. The fix was
tested for 24
hours with pkey reshuffling every few seconds. The patch applies to Roland's
master
branch.
I found an issue with that patch, I'll post an updated one
Hello,
I did a short code review of the ipoib code concentrating on
partitioning support and I mentioned that the asynchronous events
handler in the ipoib code does not take the port number reported in
the event record into consideration. The effect of that is that all of
the ib# devices
-by: Moni Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
ipoib.h |4 +++-
ipoib_ib.c| 51 +--
ipoib_main.c |5 +++--
ipoib_multicast.c | 11 ++-
ipoib_verbs.c |8 +++-
5 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 19 deletions
On 2/27/07, Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just gave this a cursory glance.
I haven't really read it except to think why is this so complicated?
Do you refer to that complication of the patch of the issue ?
A suggestion: would it not be much simpler to modify the QP from RTS
On 2/27/07, Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did a short code review of the ipoib code concentrating on
partitioning support and I mentioned that the asynchronous events
handler in the ipoib code does not take the port number reported in
the event record into consideration.
On 2/27/07, Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't really read it except to think why is this so complicated?
Do you refer to that complication of the patch of the issue ?
the patch.
Please advise and I'll change it.
Changing the P_Key index is not allowed for RTS-RTS.
On 2/27/07, Moni Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/27/07, Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did a short code review of the ipoib code concentrating on
partitioning support and I mentioned that the asynchronous events
handler in the ipoib code does not take the port number
Sean,
On 2/26/07, Sean Hefty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the following patch would make ipoib spec compliant.
ib_find_cached_pkey is called by ib_cm, rdma_cm, ib_srp, and ib_ipoib.
I'm not certain what this change would do to SRP, but the ib_cm and
rdma_cm look okay, given that
On 2/27/07, Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a second thought based on the fact that on a two port HCA we'll
have a 50% miss on the events being delivered, I would move the new
condition to be evaluated first. I apologize if this is too much of
micro optimization. What do you
On 2/27/07, Sean Hefty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for jumping into that thread, but although this patch will make
things more spec compliant, it will break functionality we depend one.
I suggest that we first find an alternate way to enable usage of
partial partition membership before
32 matches
Mail list logo
