On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 09:22:00AM -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 17:30, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 17:13, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
Hal,
This is kinda offtopic,
Yes, this is different topic(s).
but (iirc) i once stumbled over the issue of
port
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 15:27, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
The current OpenIB topology file has a place where these annotations
can
be made (and displayed).
[EZ] How would you define the internal structure of a 288port switch
in the existing topology file?
Would it support writing code that is
Title: RE: IB Diagnositic Tools
[EZ] How would you define the internal structure of a 288port switch
in the existing topology file?
Would it support writing code that is able to report something like
board spine2 of system mySwitch is missing?
I think it could.
[EZ] Anyway this
Quoting r. Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Will the Linux distros take it this way (with #ifdef OS)
I never looked at opensm vendor layer, but generally
in userspace code, it is not always worth it the effort to get rid of all
os-dependent code.
If you want an application to be portable, you
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 07:30, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
[EZ] How would you define the internal structure of a 288port
switch
in the existing topology file?
Would it support writing code that is able to report something
like
board spine2 of system mySwitch is missing?
I think it could.
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 17:30, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 17:13, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
Hal,
This is kinda offtopic,
Yes, this is different topic(s).
but (iirc) i once stumbled over the issue of
port vs. mgmt port [back then i had access to two 2-port cards]
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 09:34, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 07:30, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
[EZ] How would you define the internal structure of a 288port
switch
in the existing topology file?
Would it support writing code that is able to report something
like
From: Eitan Zahavi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 12:25 PM
Following the discussion about the debug tools, I would like to propose using
OpenSM Vendor layer as a common layer for developing the debug tools. Since
this layer is already available on both Windows and
Hi Eitan,
On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 15:25, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
Following the discussion about the debug tools, I would like to
propose using OpenSM Vendor layer as a common layer for developing the
debug tools.
Is the OpenSM vendor layer available in Windows for OpenIB or is this
something
Title: RE: IB Diagnositic Tools
Hi Fabian
I think this is a decent idea. My only reservations are that it would require
everyone to learn the OSM Vendor Layer API. It might also not allow testing
nuances in the access layer APIs, which might be useful.
[EZ] This is true. But the API is
Hi again Eitan,
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 14:29, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
Hi Hal,
Is the OpenSM vendor layer available in Windows for OpenIB or is
this
something which needs to be developed ?
[EZ] It is available (the code was part of IBAL but needed some fixes
etc).
Needed or still needs
Title: RE: IB Diagnositic Tools
[EZ] It is available (the code was part of IBAL but needed some fixes
etc).
Needed or still needs some fixes ?
[EZ] Under work but really close to completion
The current OpenIB topology file has a place where these annotations can
be made (and
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:04:16PM -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
Hi Eitan,
On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 15:25, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
Following the discussion about the debug tools, I would like to
propose using OpenSM Vendor layer as a common layer for developing the
debug tools.
Hal,
This is kinda
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 17:13, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
Hal,
This is kinda offtopic,
Yes, this is different topic(s).
but (iirc) i once stumbled over the issue of
port vs. mgmt port [back then i had access to two 2-port cards]
where you may have said something along the lines of
\There is
14 matches
Mail list logo
