> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:openib-general- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fab Tillier > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 11:37 PM > To: Hal Rosenstock; 'Eitan Zahavi' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; openib-general@openib.org > Subject: RE: [openib-general] IBDM and IBMgtSim Proposal Comments > > > From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 10:56 AM > > > > In the OpenIB architecture, umad is the lowest layer library and the > > diagnostics are built on that. > > That's only true in the *Linux* OpenIB Architecture. Windows is different > - the > access layer already provides support for user-level MAD clients, and the > API is > very close (if not identical) to the IBAL interface OpenSM was originally > written to. >
>From my understanding the main advantage for using the OSM Vendor specific layer is that it is also present in Windows ? or does it have some other advantage over the umad layer (from Hal's response seems like umad has better layering/functionality) ? If that is the case than you can also suggest to replace the OpenIB verbs layer or CM, etc' with the IBAL one because its present in Windows I believe if we want to do a major change in the management infrastructure that is live and kicking (can probably improve like always) We need a much better reason than "its done this way in Windows" Yaron _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
