On 05:00 Thu 01 Nov , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 05:56 +0200, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: > > On 20:41 Wed 31 Oct , Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 02:24:10AM +0200, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: > > > > > > > What are the reasons? I think complaint SMs should be able to > > > > inter-operate, of course not in part of proprietary extensions. At least > > > > I am able to run OpenSM with Voltaire SM on one subnet. > > > > > > At a minimum how hand off is supposed to work is very vaugely > > > specified in the IBA. > > > > It is at least basically described in the IBA - with exchanging SMInfo. > > > > > Besides, even if hand off wasn't a problem the two SMs would have to > > > have very similar ideas on routing, multicast, QOS, services, etc > > > > In worst case the routing tables and QoS setups could be reconfigured > > from scratch (just as if it could be first SM run), and all SA related > > things could be rerequested with ClientReregistration bit. > > Routing tables are usually driven by algorithms (all beyond the spec) > rather than table loading. > > Don't trivialize management data in a large subnet. It is potentially a > large amount of configuration which people try hard to avoid until they > no longer have a choice. > > I view client reregistration as a workaround for this very issue. I am > regretting pushing that into the spec for that purpose. > > > And sure, some configurations (partitions, QoS, routing, etc.) can be > > not synchronized for SMs, but then the differences in a fabric setups > > should be expected results. > > Is that really acceptable for a real customer ?
This was not a question - "acceptable" and "impossible" is not a same. 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
