Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
On 08:32 Fri 31 Aug , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On 8/31/07, Sasha Khapyorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 07:21 Fri 31 Aug , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On 8/31/07, Sasha Khapyorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06:58 Thu 30 Aug , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
And when the setup part of the new QoS will be ready, would we still want
the SL2VL and VLArb tables to appear in the opts file?
Don't think. Why we need it in two places?
Are you saying that the existing QoS will get these tables from the
new QoS syntax (and the existing syntax eliminated) ?
Yes. I think it is better than to keep two potentially conflicting
configurations.
If so, what
about backward compatibility ? Also, how straightforward is it to
specify the equivalent as the existing syntax ? Will a conversion tool
be supplied ?
Not sure it is needed - it is just few lines of text now.
The new equivalent syntax ?
The new syntax is not equivalent, but similar in part of vlarb and sl2vl
configuration, it is much more powerful and requires some extra lines.
In order to have equivalent configurations vlarb and sl2vl should be
specified by node/port type.
Is there/will there be such a syntax ?
There is, as far as I understand it. Yevgeny?
Right,
There are five QoS sections in opensm.opts file:
1. QoS default options
2. QoS CA options
3. QoS Switch Port 0 options
4. QoS Switch external ports options
5. QoS Router ports options
First, second, and fifth option are easily defined as
port group that has ALL,CA, and ROUTER nodes respectively.
Second and third are group of all SWITCHes, but it will require
few extra lines in the setup section, e.g., for third option
sl2vl tables should be configured "from: * to: 0" ports.
-- Yevgeny
Sasha
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
