Re: [openib-general] Fwd: Address List Change Now Scheduled for Wednesday, 2/28/2007
On Feb 27, 2007, at 2:10 AM, Diego Guella wrote: Should I do something to get subscribed to the new mailing list or I will be automatically subscribed? There is nothing that you need to do; the list is simply being migrated from one server to another and changing names in the process. The only change is that I have to write messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED], correct? Correct. There will be aliases in place to redirect messages from the old name to the new name, too. So the warning is more about updating e-mail client filters, etc. - Original Message - From: Jeff Squyres [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: OpenFabrics General openib-general@openib.org Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 6:05 PM Subject: [openib-general] Fwd: Address List Change Now Scheduled for Wednesday, 2/28/2007 FYI. In case you missed it the Nth time: THIS LIST IS CHANGING ON WEDNESDAY 2/28/2007 (2 days from now). Really. For sure this time. Trust me. Honest. Please update your addressbooks! Begin forwarded message: From: Lee, Michael Paichi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: February 22, 2007 11:44:25 AM EST To: Jeff Squyres [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: OpenFabrics General openib-general@openib.org Subject: Address List Change Now Scheduled for Wednesday, 2/28/2007 The list will now be migrated on Wednesday, 2/28/2007. List address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Updated change-date: Wednesday, 2/28/2007 Michael -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] mpi over IB
During the installation process, the OFED installer should have asked you if you wanted to install Open MPI and/or MVAPICH. Both of these MPI implementations are capable of communicating natively over the IB interface. Running MPI applications with Open MPI should natively choose the IB interface at run time if your IB network is up and running properly (e.g., try running ibv_devinfo to ensure that ports are listed in the PORT_ACTIVE state, etc.). I assume that the same is true with MVAPICH as well. On Feb 27, 2007, at 6:35 AM, Bala wrote: Hi All, We have build and installed OFED-1.1 on RHEL-4 machines, while compiling selected mpi support, pls through some light on how to use mpi over IB interface, using what modules etc. or do we need to install separate mpi software to use. thanks in advance, -bala- __ __ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] for OFED 1.2
It would be great if all of this knowledge is posted to the wiki to avoid repeating this conversation in the future (or one of countless variations of this conversation). For example, I admit to not paying close attention to many of the threads on this list, but this was the first time I'd head of quilt. Specifically: if there are tools and methods that are helpful for OFA/ OFED development, they should be detailed on the wiki. The wiki is where all permanent knowledge should be posted. This is just my $0.01... On Feb 27, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: Quoting Steve Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Subject: Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] for OFED 1.2 On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 18:55 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: Quoting Sean Hefty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Subject: Re: [PATCH] for OFED 1.2 Please send patches that will be added to kernel_patches/fixes. Please update your git tree from git://git.openfabrics.org/~vlad/ofed_1_2/.git ofed_1_2 You want me to create a patch that adds a file that contains the actual patches? Why not apply the patches directly? That's the ofed structure, this was discussed multiple times already. The point is to keep all changes to upstream components separate, to make updating to upstream kernel trivial in the future. Worked quite well for OFED 1.1 - 1.2 transition. Having these patches as files is painful for every developer because they cannot create a patch against ofed_1_2/drivers/infiniband/* nor the kernel.org upstream tree. Did you try using quilt which makes managing patch stacks quite easy? If you have quilt installed, OFED scripts actually use it to apply patches, so things are easy. They need to apply all the current patches and then create a patch on top of that. Or hope the patch applies fuzzily. One point I can't stress enough: whatever way you create a patch, developers are expected to build and test it in OFED environment before posting. I think with stacked git or just git and rebasing at key times, you could keep an ofed_1_2 tree that folks can easily apply patches to... Its too late to change this for 1.2, but you might want to reconsider the design for 1.3. Well, I experimented with git rebase and it is unfortunately still fragile at this point. I agree using stacked git might be a good idea, I just did not have the chance to experiment with it enough. I had an impression that publishing stg managed branch creates problems for whoever attempts to track it, but I might be wrong. -- MST ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] for OFED 1.2
On Feb 27, 2007, at 12:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: Lot's of stuff *is* in wiki already - did you look at pages Vlad created? A search for quilt on the wiki turns up nothing (I checked before I posted :-) ). And yes, I have [thoroughly] read the pages Vlad created. But the very fact that this conversation is occurring is because either the information is not on the wiki or what is on the wiki is not clear. Otherwise, I suspect that you simply would have pointed Steve to the wiki and said Please read the fine manual at http://;. Don't get me wrong; what has already been posted is great. I'm just saying: keep it coming! The wiki should be a living document that changes as our procedures and collective wisdom changes. It saves us *all* time over the long run. A one-time dump of information is not nearly as useful as an ever-updated document. Things can always be improved, you can add stuff too. https://wiki.openfabrics.org/tiki-lastchanges.php?days=31 shows that only Tziporet and myself have changed the OFED portion of the wiki over the past month. So -- *you* can add stuff to the wiki, too. :-) This is just my $0.01... It buys very little, if anything. In fact, a whole $0.02 also buys very little, if anything. So take my comments for what they're worth. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
[openib-general] Fwd: Address List Change Now Scheduled for Wednesday, 2/28/2007
FYI. In case you missed it the Nth time: THIS LIST IS CHANGING ON WEDNESDAY 2/28/2007 (2 days from now). Really. For sure this time. Trust me. Honest. Please update your addressbooks! Begin forwarded message: From: Lee, Michael Paichi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: February 22, 2007 11:44:25 AM EST To: Jeff Squyres [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: OpenFabrics General openib-general@openib.org Subject: Address List Change Now Scheduled for Wednesday, 2/28/2007 The list will now be migrated on Wednesday, 2/28/2007. List address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Updated change-date: Wednesday, 2/28/2007 Michael -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] libibverbs: can't compile more than once due to man3 symbolic links
Is there a reason not to use man_MANS = ibv_get_async_event.3 ? On Feb 22, 2007, at 7:32 AM, Jack Morgenstein wrote: The code below was just added to libibverbs/Makefile.am install-data-hook: cd $(DESTDIR)$(mandir)/man3 \ $(LN_S) ibv_get_async_event.3 ibv_ack_async_event.3 \ This creates a problem when re-compiling/re-installing libibverbs -- the ln -s ( = $(LN_S) ) fails because the symbolic links still exist in the man/man3 directory. I rummaged around the libtool documentation, and there is no pre- defined macro which does ln -fs (which would just overwrite the current links). Any ideas on how to fix this problem cleanly (i.e., without violating spirit of libtool/automake)? - Jack ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] libibverbs: can't compile more than once due to man3 symbolic links
Blah -- disregard; I read the mail too quickly and didn't look at the actual Makefile.am to see what you were really asking. FWIW, the install app, by default, removes things before copying in the new target. So putting a manual rm -f in here, while klunky, has precedent and will make it work. On Feb 22, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: Is there a reason not to use man_MANS = ibv_get_async_event.3 ? On Feb 22, 2007, at 7:32 AM, Jack Morgenstein wrote: The code below was just added to libibverbs/Makefile.am install-data-hook: cd $(DESTDIR)$(mandir)/man3 \ $(LN_S) ibv_get_async_event.3 ibv_ack_async_event.3 \ This creates a problem when re-compiling/re-installing libibverbs -- the ln -s ( = $(LN_S) ) fails because the symbolic links still exist in the man/man3 directory. I rummaged around the libtool documentation, and there is no pre- defined macro which does ln -fs (which would just overwrite the current links). Any ideas on how to fix this problem cleanly (i.e., without violating spirit of libtool/automake)? - Jack ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
[openib-general] Fwd: Address List Change for Friday, 2/23/2007
FYI. In case you missed it the first time: THIS LIST IS CHANGING ON FRIDAY 2/23/2007 (2 days from now). Please update your addressbooks! See the notice below for the details. Begin forwarded message: From: Lee, Michael Paichi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: February 19, 2007 10:43:23 AM EST To: openib-general@openib.org Subject: [openib-general] Address List Change for Friday, 2/23/2007 We're in the process of migrating the maillists from the old openib.org server to the new lists.openfabrics.org machine. The list openib-general will be moved this Friday, February 23, 2007. The new address for the maillist will be [EMAIL PROTECTED] What this means is that messages will come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Conversely, replies should be made to this address as well. Messages will also have a new subject line prefix of [OFA General]. If you have configured your e-mail client to filter based on maillist address or subject headers, you may need to make some adjustments for filtering. However, for the sake of transition, messages sent to the previous maillist address on the old server will forward to the new server. This forward will remain in place until the old server is taken offline and final DNS changes are made. We expect the old server to go offline sometime in early March. The web archives will also be migrated to the new web address shortly, http://lists.openfabrics.org. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Michael Lee ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Address List Change for Friday, 2/23/2007
Can you look at the other lists that have migrated for examples? (e.g., ewg) It may be complex to send an actual example message *before* the list moves. On Feb 21, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: Could an example message be please sent *today* to the new list, so that client rules can be updated? I can't access my inbox on Friday or Saturday, and this change will cause problems and message loss for me unless I can prepare beforehand. Quoting Jeff Squyres [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Subject: Fwd: Address List Change for Friday, 2/23/2007 FYI. In case you missed it the first time: THIS LIST IS CHANGING ON FRIDAY 2/23/2007 (2 days from now). Please update your addressbooks! See the notice below for the details. Begin forwarded message: From: Lee, Michael Paichi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: February 19, 2007 10:43:23 AM EST To: openib-general@openib.org Subject: [openib-general] Address List Change for Friday, 2/23/2007 We're in the process of migrating the maillists from the old openib.org server to the new lists.openfabrics.org machine. The list openib-general will be moved this Friday, February 23, 2007. The new address for the maillist will be [EMAIL PROTECTED] What this means is that messages will come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Conversely, replies should be made to this address as well. Messages will also have a new subject line prefix of [OFA General]. If you have configured your e-mail client to filter based on maillist address or subject headers, you may need to make some adjustments for filtering. However, for the sake of transition, messages sent to the previous maillist address on the old server will forward to the new server. This forward will remain in place until the old server is taken offline and final DNS changes are made. We expect the old server to go offline sometime in early March. The web archives will also be migrated to the new web address shortly, http://lists.openfabrics.org. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Michael Lee ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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 -- MST -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [ewg] Re: Address List Change for Friday, 2/23/2007
Heh. Probably a typo in the transition to the new server. Michael -- can you fix? On Feb 19, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Greg Lindahl wrote: I see that the EWG list is now calling itself the Engineering Working Group, has it been renamed from the Enterprise Working Group? If so, did the nature of the list change? Or was it a typo? -- greg ___ ewg mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Open MPI rpmbuild fails in OFED-1.2
On Feb 14, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Scott Weitzenkamp ((sweitzen)) wrote: Tziporet and Doug, we can discuss this at the OFED conf call on Feb 26, I suggest we try to improve this area. I strongly agree with this and all of Doug's points (see my prior e- mails on this subject :-) ). -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
[openib-general] uDAPL in OFED 1.1 question
I have an OFED 1.1 cluster where something odd is happening in the udapl Open MPI plugin (I'm not excluding the possibility that we have a bug in the OMPI udapl plugin -- I'm just trying to understand some uDAPL behavior). In some cases, we are getting back the error DAT_CONN_QUAL_IN_USE from dat_ep_create(). However, someone more knowledgeable about udapl than me said that the spec says that DAT_CONN_QUAL_IN_USE should only be reported back from a call to dat_psp_create() or dat_rsp_create(). Can someone tell me exactly what dat_ep_create() returning DAT_CONN_QUAL_IN_USE means? Thanks. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Open MPI rpmbuild fails in OFED-1.2
New SRPM on server that munges the %build section into the %install section. Yuck. :-) On Feb 7, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Vladimir Sokolovsky wrote: Hi Jeff, Please remove %build macro from the RPM spec file. On SuSE distros it removes RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.23343 + umask 022 + cd /var/tmp/OFEDRPM/BUILD + /bin/rm -rf /var/tmp/OFED ++ dirname /var/tmp/OFED + /bin/mkdir -p /var/tmp + /bin/mkdir /var/tmp/OFED + cd openmpi-1.2b4ofedr13470 + fortify_source=1 + test '' '!=' '' ... -- Vladimir Sokolovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mellanox Technologies Ltd. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Open MPI rpmbuild fails in OFED-1.2
The %build directive is not just a macro, it's also a section qualifier indicating the beginning of the build section. From http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/drafts/rpm-guide-en/ch08s02.html#id2966770 The build section starts with a %build statement. Is there something else that I should replace it with that will also start the build section? On Feb 7, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Vladimir Sokolovsky wrote: Hi Jeff, Please remove %build macro from the RPM spec file. On SuSE distros it removes RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.23343 + umask 022 + cd /var/tmp/OFEDRPM/BUILD + /bin/rm -rf /var/tmp/OFED ++ dirname /var/tmp/OFED + /bin/mkdir -p /var/tmp + /bin/mkdir /var/tmp/OFED + cd openmpi-1.2b4ofedr13470 + fortify_source=1 + test '' '!=' '' ... -- Vladimir Sokolovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mellanox Technologies Ltd. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Open MPI rpmbuild fails in OFED-1.2
My $0.02: This is another in a growing list of issues reflecting the whole build everything in DESTDIR is a problematic approach. I have distinct %build and %install sections in the Open MPI specfile -- they're really intended for two different things. Specifically: I wouldn't call the SuSE %build behavior a bug -- it reflects how they want RPM designers to write RPMs. It appears that we're trying to circumvent their intended approach. Shouldn't that be a warning flag? :-) I've heard offhand comments that there were problems with trying to use chroot for building OFED. The two that I'm aware of are: 1. need to be root to make a chroot. My thought: who cares? 2. takes up lots of extra disk space. My thought: does it matter? Do we know of anyone who has small- disk servers who are building OFED? (and/or: can you hard-link files to make a chroot environment? I'm don't know) Are there other issues? More specifically, which is going to be simpler: a) fixing the growing list of problems with the DESTDIR approach or b) switching to a chroot environment? A simple search for chroot on freshmeat, for example, turns up a number of projects that can be used to help automate the creation of chroot environments. Again -- this is all my $0.02. Comments? On Feb 7, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Vladimir Sokolovsky wrote: I propose to replace %build by %install. Otherwise %build removes /var/tmp/OFED (on SuSE) which includes all installed libraries. Regards, Vladimir On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 11:52 -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote: The %build directive is not just a macro, it's also a section qualifier indicating the beginning of the build section. From http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/drafts/rpm-guide-en/ ch08s02.html#id2966770 The build section starts with a %build statement. Is there something else that I should replace it with that will also start the build section? On Feb 7, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Vladimir Sokolovsky wrote: Hi Jeff, Please remove %build macro from the RPM spec file. On SuSE distros it removes RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.23343 + umask 022 + cd /var/tmp/OFEDRPM/BUILD + /bin/rm -rf /var/tmp/OFED ++ dirname /var/tmp/OFED + /bin/mkdir -p /var/tmp + /bin/mkdir /var/tmp/OFED + cd openmpi-1.2b4ofedr13470 + fortify_source=1 + test '' '!=' '' ... -- Vladimir Sokolovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mellanox Technologies Ltd. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] build.sh not building libmthca
Yes, please file all bugs in bugzilla. Thanks! On Feb 6, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Steve Wise wrote: Do you want me to use bugzilla to track these issues? On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 10:06 -0600, Steve Wise wrote: Another build problem with the alpha test package: If I run build.sh and _only_ select libmthca, it claims it builds it ok, but doesn't produce the .rpm file... Steve. ___ 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 ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Minutes for January 29, 2007 teleconference about OFED 1.2 release integration and build procedures
On Jan 31, 2007, at 1:58 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: 4. Vlad to have a daily build of the full OFED package Where is this build available from? http://www.openfabrics.org/builds/ All I see at that URL is nightly tarballs of the OFA kernel sources and the OFA user sources. I was under the impression from the above text that there would be an **OFED** nightly tarball generated. Is this incorrect? -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Minutes for January 29, 2007 teleconference about OFED 1.2 release integration and build procedures
On Jan 31, 2007, at 6:51 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: I was under the impression from the above text that there would be an **OFED** nightly tarball generated. OFED didn't branch yet so there's no difference. So are you saying that starting tomorrow (or shortly after tomorrow -- whatever), there will be a nightly OFED tarball (with all the OFED build scripts and sources and whatnot -- quite different than just bundling the OFA sources together) available at that URL as well? -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Minutes for January 29, 2007 teleconference about OFED 1.2 release integration and build procedures
On Jan 31, 2007, at 7:29 AM, Tziporet Koren wrote: There is a misunderstanding here: Michale pointed you to the current daily build of OFA SW. The build of the full OFED tarball will available early next week (hope on Monday). When this will happened Vlad will send a mail to all with the packages location. Great -- thanks! -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] I created a git tree for the libibverbs man pages
Ooohhh -- yes, this would be wonderful! I would suggest s/OpenIB/OpenFabrics/ throughout the man pages, though. On Jan 30, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Dotan Barak wrote: Hi all. I created a git tree for the libibverbs man pages in the path: ~dotanb/libibverbs_man_pages.git Roland, can you please take those files and add them to libibverbs? I will be more than happy to see those man pages in OFED 1.2 thanks Dotan ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] OFED 1.2 release - to be reviewed in the meeting today
It would be helpful to see the MVAPICH1 distribution for OFED 1.2 somewhere on the OFA server (under ~vlad/ofed_1_2 or ~vlad/ public_html/ofed_1_2...?) for comparison / example purposes. On Jan 30, 2007, at 8:36 PM, Shaun Rowland wrote: Tziporet Koren wrote: *MPI packages: *1. MPI packages are provided as source RPMs 2. Each MPI owner will have an account on the OFA server and will open a directory named ofed_1_2 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 staging.openfabrics.org, in ~/public_html, or is there something else I need to do to put this into place? I think from the previous MPI specific meeting, this was supposed to be done in a web directory. Since I am unclear, I wanted to ask here. -- Shaun Rowland [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~rowland/ ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Minutes for January 29, 2007 teleconference about OFED 1.2 release integration and build procedures
On Jan 30, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Tziporet Koren wrote: 4. Vlad to have a daily build of the full OFED package Where is this build available from? Thanks. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] resolving sending mails from OFA new server
Michael Lee from Sandia is working on the mail migration issues; I don't know what his timeframe is. On Jan 22, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Tziporet Koren wrote: Hi Johann, Vlad arranged daily build mails so everybody can be notified on compilation status. However there are technical problems that prevent us from sending these mails that are related to the DNS See thread: http://openib.org/pipermail/openib-general/2007-January/ 031831.html Note that bugzilla update mails are not sent from the same reason. Since we going to have the code freeze and alpha soon (end of next week) it will be very important to fix these isses Thanks, Tziporet -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] resolving sending mails from OFA new server
Vlad/Michael -- Can you try again? The issue should be resolved now. On Jan 22, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Tziporet Koren wrote: Hi Johann, Vlad arranged daily build mails so everybody can be notified on compilation status. However there are technical problems that prevent us from sending these mails that are related to the DNS See thread: http://openib.org/pipermail/openib-general/2007-January/ 031831.html Note that bugzilla update mails are not sent from the same reason. Since we going to have the code freeze and alpha soon (end of next week) it will be very important to fix these isses Thanks, Tziporet -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] resolving sending mails from OFA new server
On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: Vlad will test outgoing mail in the morning. Is bugzilla mailgateway functioning as well? At which address? I don't know anything about the bugzilla interface -- who set it up? What exactly do you need? -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] new.openfabrics.org names
On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: The name staging.openfabrics.org was really intended to be temporary until the old openfabrics.org was taken offline and replaced with the new one. BTW, SSL certificate was purchased only for staging,openfabrics.org. And, that certificate has expired. FWIW, I think it was just a self-signed cert. It wasn't actually purchased. So when you visit bugs.openfabrics.org, you can not see anything, actually: firefox throws 1000 warnings about security. That's a lot of warnings. :-) I think we need an updated SSL cert, and for proper name. Who's handling these things? Who handles the OFA money? -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] new.openfabrics.org names
On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: BTW, SSL certificate was purchased only for staging,openfabrics.org. And, that certificate has expired. FWIW, I think it was just a self-signed cert. It wasn't actually purchased. Maybe someone can do this for bugs.openfabrics.org for now? Are you asking for a self-signed cert on bugs.openfabrics.org? Sure, that should be do-able. Michael -- could you do that? Thanks! -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] resolving sending mails from OFA new server
Great; thanks. On Jan 22, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: Quoting Jeff Squyres [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Subject: Re: resolving sending mails from OFA new server Vlad/Michael -- Can you try again? The issue should be resolved now. Outgoing mail seems to work. Vlad'll check more tomorrow. -- MST -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] new.openfabrics.org names
On Jan 22, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Cain, Brian ((GE Healthcare)) wrote: Are you asking for a self-signed cert on bugs.openfabrics.org? Sure, that should be do-able. Michael -- could you do that? Might I recommend a cert signed by CACert (http://www.cacert.org/)? It's no more expensive than self signed and easier to trust. My $0.02 (and then I'm out of this conversation :-) ): 1. CACert has no degree of trust. If anyone can get them for free, then you have no guarantees about anything. You get SSL, but you can't trust it. 2. If we have no money to spend on certificates, it's not too difficult to create our own root CA and sign all of our certs from it. Hence, it's still just one cert to import into your browser. 3. If we have money to spend on certificates, then we should spend it and get ones signed by verisign or someone that already has a CA in popular browsers. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
[openib-general] Mailing lists
All -- As you can see from the mails from Michaels Lee and Tsirkin, we're working on moving e-mail to the new server. We had in mind some changes to propose: 1. Rename the openib-general list to be [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2. Rename the openfabrics-ewg list to be [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. ...similarly rename all other lists to remove the now-redundant openib-* and/or openfabrics-* prefixes. -- For items 1-3, mail aliases can be put in place so that people's current addressbooks won't break (i.e., if you mail openib- [EMAIL PROTECTED], it'll still get to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list), but the real list names will be the shorter names, etc. So mailman URLs will change, from addresses will change, etc. 4. Have a general [EMAIL PROTECTED] list that will get mails of all SVN commits and commit messages from anyone who chooses to have their git commit mails sent there. 5. Have a [EMAIL PROTECTED] list that will get *all* bugzilla activity. These are just ideas, and not from the guys who are doing OFA development (i.e., Michael Lee and myself). So your input would be welcome here... Comments? -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] resolving sending mails from OFA new server
On Jan 22, 2007, at 5:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: Michael, what I'm trying to use is the bugzilla email gateway. Ok. This is new functionality that I don't think we had on the old server, right? It'll be easier to get all the other lists migrated and working first rather than put in a bunch of hackarounds for new functionality before various DNS records and whatnot are switched, only to have to take them down once the electronic resources are finalized. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] SVN deprication
SVN is still available, but it is at a new URL: https://svn.openfabrics.org/svn/openib. All the history and everything should be there; let me know if you have any problems. On Jan 17, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Arkady Kanevsky wrote: Jeff and Co, Is there a way to find out the date of a specific SVN revision #? I can no longer access svn: svn info -r 5400 https://openfabric.org/svn svn: PROPFIND request failed on '/svn' svn: PROPFIND of '/svn': could not connect to server (https:// openfabric.org) Is the SVN server depricated for good? Do we have an SVN log somewhere in a git? If yes, how can I find the correlation between Linux version and SVN revision? Thanks, Arkady ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [openfabrics-ewg] Reminder: OFED 1.2
On Jan 17, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: 1. Putting the MPI release in git provides a level of OFED-specific history and version control. This was explicitly stated on the call yesterday. Which history information we are expecting to see between bin-file- ver1 and bin-file-ver2, where files bin-file-ver* are never changed? I think the point is when they *do* change. 2. MPI's have concrete releases to OFED just like all other ULP's, especially if there is any OFED-specific packaging involved in the MPI's release. This was not stated on the call, but it makes sense to me. 3. Putting everything in git makes it nicely uniform for OFED to be assembled. This was not stated on the call, and I'm sure it's not a requirement, but it is a little nice to be uniform when assembling OFED (my $0.02). 4. We used to put the MPI releases in SVN (tarball or SRPM) for prior OFED release processes, Yes, and it was bad practice IMO. GIT and SVN are version tracking tools, mostly usable for sources and not for compilation results. Why one should install git if everything really needed is just to download file from the server? The SRPMs are not compilation results. Putting compilation results in a version tracking tool would be useless, I agree. so putting them in a git seems to parallel that procedure. Just file hosting should be perfectly enough for the all above. I don't see any real reason to use git as non-versioned binary files storage. I think the point was that you could then get a definitive set of files that were shipped in OFED version x.y -- you could accurately rebuild OFED regardless of what files are hosted on the other open source web sites. A perfect example is that the MVAPICH1 package in OFED is prepared by Mellanox, not OSU. So there was no web site to make that tarball and support files available from. Another example is that open source projects may decide to no longer host older versions of their software -- OFA may not be able to control that. The point here is that version control principles apply to binaries just as well as they apply to sources (indeed, the files we're talking about here are binary bundles of sources). Just my $0.02. :-) -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [openfabrics-ewg] Reminder: OFED 1.2
This is such a trivial matter that it really isn't worth arguing about. :-) Tell us MPI guys how you want MPI releases published to OFED and we'll do it. On Jan 17, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: I don't really care one way or another; this was just my understanding of why it was requested. Jeff is correct - I requested this from the reasons above. I think all we need for OFED is just a *fixed* URL where OFED build script can download the OFED-specific SRPM for 1.2. If this is a problem for OSU it can be hosted at the openfabrics server. Correct? -- MST -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [openfabrics-ewg] Reminder: OFED 1.2
FWIW, having git's for the MPI implementations was asked for on the call yesterday (by Tziporet, IIRC?). The rationale, as I understood it, was threefold: 1. Putting the MPI release in git provides a level of OFED-specific history and version control. This was explicitly stated on the call yesterday. 2. MPI's have concrete releases to OFED just like all other ULP's, especially if there is any OFED-specific packaging involved in the MPI's release. This was not stated on the call, but it makes sense to me. 3. Putting everything in git makes it nicely uniform for OFED to be assembled. This was not stated on the call, and I'm sure it's not a requirement, but it is a little nice to be uniform when assembling OFED (my $0.02). 4. We used to put the MPI releases in SVN (tarball or SRPM) for prior OFED release processes, so putting them in a git seems to parallel that procedure. I don't really care one way or another; this was just my understanding of why it was requested. On Jan 16, 2007, at 3:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: Quoting Woodruff, Robert J [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Subject: Re: [openfabrics-ewg] Reminder: OFED 1.2 Sasha wrote, On 17:25 Mon 15 Jan , Tziporet Koren wrote: Dhabaleswar Panda wrote: Shaun Roland from my group (cc'ed in this e-mail) will be in charge of this. Vlad and Shaun can communicate. Hi Shaun, Please open an account in the OFA server so you will be able to have a git tree to place your SRPM But why git tree is needed for SRPM? SRPM is binary file, no? Sasha Sasha wrote, I am not sure why a git tree is needed for RPMS, unless that is the only way to expose it from the server to the outside world. I there a way to allow people from the outside to access just a directory with the RPMS ? or tarballs for things ? Using git for binary files does not make sense. If you want to host files on OFA server, just create a world-readable pub_html directory under $HOME and put the files there. They will be accessible as http://www.openfabrics.org/~user/ filename . OTOH, do we really want to host a copy on OFA servers? I thought OSU already host it, we can just wget the SRPM from there. No? -- MST ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [openfabrics-ewg] Reminder: OFED 1.2
On Jan 16, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: FWIW, having git's for the MPI implementations was asked for on the call yesterday (by Tziporet, IIRC?). The rationale, as I understood it, was threefold: Threefold, fourfold, tenfold... who's counting? :-) -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] bugzilla email gateway
On Jan 11, 2007, at 7:22 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: Was bugzilla migrated to staging? If you're using bugs.openfabrics.org, then yes. I believe that Michael shut down the bugzilla on the old server (right, Michael?). Is the bugzilla email gateway functional in bugzilla? None of the e-mail for openfabrics or openib have been moved to the new server; we're still sorting out DNS issues. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] bugzilla email gateway
Michael will have to answer that. My assumption is that it's going to be broken for now. We took the approach of moving everything else first, and then moving all mail-related services second. Perhaps that was a mistake. :-\ Depending on how much longer it takes to migrate all the rest of the mail services, this problem could go away soon anyway. On Jan 11, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: Quoting Jeff Squyres [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Is the bugzilla email gateway functional in bugzilla? None of the e-mail for openfabrics or openib have been moved to the new server; we're still sorting out DNS issues. So, can you make bugzilla email gateway work with old e-mail addresses, or is this broken for now? -- MST -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Reminder: OFED 1.2 coordination meeting next Monday at 9am PST
+358.1.819.2717 Israel Netanya+972.9.892.7026 Italy Rome +39.06.5164.4006 Latvia Riga +358.204.70.6227 NetherlandsAmsterdam +31.20.357.1487 Norway Oslo +47.23.27.3647 Poland Warsaw +48.22.572.2615 Portugal Lisbon +351.21.446.8756 Slovakia Bratislava +421.2.5825.5309 South Africa Cape Town +27.21.413.4502 Johannesburg +27.11.267.1011 Pretoria +27.12.844.7401 Spain Barcelona +34.93.393.4037 Madrid +34.91.201.2149 Sweden Gothenburg +46.31.63.4409 Stockholm +46.8.685.9035 SwitzerlandGlattzentrum +41.44.878.7335 Turkey Istanbul +90.212.335.0208 United Arab Emirates (UAE) Dubai +971.4.390.7840 United Kingdom Bedfont Lakes +44.20.8824.0117 Edinburgh +44.131.561.3643 London City+44.20.7496.3743 ASIA PACIFIC Australia Melbourne +61.3.9659.4173 North Sydney +61.2.8446.5260 China Beijing+86.10.8515.5666 Shanghai +86.21.2302.4200 Hong Kong Hong Kong +852.3414.1802 India Bangalore +91.80.4103.3979 Hyderabad +91.40.4022.3450 Mumbai IL FS +91.22.4043.4030 New Delhi +91.11.4261.1088 Indonesia Jakarta+62.21.7854.7476 Japan Tokyo Akasaka +81.3.5763.9394 South KoreaSeoul Asem +82.2.3429.8102 Malaysia Kuala Lumpur +60.3.7723.8620 Penang +60.4.631.5125 New ZealandAuckland +64.9.355.1968 Wellington +64.4.496.5554 PhilippinesMakati (Manila)+63.2.750.5886 Singapore Singapore Capital +65.6317.7088 Taiwan Taipei +886.2.8758.7088 Thailand Bangkok+66.2.263.7008 VietnamHanoi +84.4.974.6250 Ho Chi Minh City +84.8.823.3418 (Saigon) ___ On Jan 11, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Steve Wise wrote: Could someone email me the bridge information? I didn't see any email from Jeff. Thanks, Steve. On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 14:15 +0200, Tziporet Koren wrote: Hi All, After a long holidays break we are going to have our next OFED 1.2 coordination meeting on Monday Jan-15 at 9am PST (Jeff sent bridge info) The only agenda item I have is reviewing components' readiness for the end of month code freeze. If you have other items for the agenda please let me know Thanks, Tziporet ___ 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 ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] wiki problem on openfabrics.org
Michael -- Do you know what's going on? On Jan 9, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Steve Wise wrote: I'm trying to edit the Chelsio T3 HowTo on the open fabrics wiki. After logging in ok and editing the page ok, I cannot save the edits. When I click on the save button, my browser pops up a window with a blurb about You have chosen to open tiki-index.php... I think something is still whacked with the wiki configuration. Is this just me or my browser? Or is something wrong. Steve. ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [mvapich-discuss] This is the last time I'm asking...
DK -- Are you going to answer my questions? On Nov 6, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: As I explained in my mail, no one had replied to any of the posts containing my very directed and specific questions (not even you -- and you still haven't), so I figured that no one cared. That's not an unreasonable assumption given that I posted the same questions 3 times and got silence in return. I am unaware of any special right required to make a motion. Are there some protocols (perhaps a la Robert's Rules of Order) that are typically used for making a motion? I haven't seen any...? The agenda for the SC Developer's Summit is already over-full. This conversation is fine to begin in e-mail; a good start would be answering my original questions. Thanks! On Nov 6, 2006, at 9:53 AM, Dhabaleswar Panda wrote: Jeff: May I know on with what `right' you are making this motion to remove the code. To have the code there was decided by the OpenIB community and the organizers. It needs to be decided by the community, not by an individual person. Let me suggest that we we discuss this at the Developers Summit at SC '06. If the Open Fabrics community no longer wants the code to be there and will prefer to download it from the OSU SVN site, we can proceed accordingly. Thanks, DK Having received no replies for 2 weeks as to why it is useful to have MVAPICH in the OpenFabrics SVN, I can only conclude that no one cares. If someone does care, please respond to my original questions included below ASAP (originally posted 23 Oct, 27 Oct, 1 Nov). I therefore make the motion to remove MVAPICH from the OpenFabrics SVN (all the source is still available via the OSU SVN and other distribution points). Specifically, I motion to do the following around COB tomorrow (7 Nov 2006): svn rm https://openib.org/svn/gen2/trunk/src/userspace/mpi Any objections? On Nov 1, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: Forwarding this to the mvapich-discuss list because it has gotten zero replies on the openib-general list. If someone from OSU could reply, it would be most helpful. Thanks. Begin forwarded message: From: Jeff Squyres [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: October 27, 2006 11:05:17 AM EDT To: openib openib-general@openib.org Subject: Re: [mvapich] Announcing the release of MVAPICH2 0.9.6 with on-demand connection management, multi-core optimized shared memory communication and memory hook support Any response from the OSU crew? Can someone provide a reason why MVAPICH is still in OpenIB's Subversion repository? Please see my original mail, below, for more detailed questions. Thanks. On Oct 23, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: On Oct 22, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Dhabaleswar Panda wrote: A stripped down version of this release is also available at the OpenIB SVN. I see this statement in every MVAPICH release notice and it continues to puzzle me. I understand that there was a use for an alternate distribution source before MVAPICH became open source. But now that the MVAPICH code bases are freely available from OSU via multiple mechanisms (anonymous SVN, tarball download, etc.), why is a stripped down version maintained in the OpenIB SVN? 1. What, exactly, is the difference between the MVAPICH available from OSU and the stripped down version in the OpenIB SVN? 2. Why would someone choose to download the stripped down version from the OpenIB SVN? Have any real users/customers done so? 3. What is the point of maintaining yet more flavors of MVAPICH -- aren't there enough already (multiple versions from OSU, more versions available from each IB vendor)? DK -- can you please explain? Thanks. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ mvapich-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.cse.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/mvapich-discuss -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
[openib-general] This is the last time I'm asking...
Having received no replies for 2 weeks as to why it is useful to have MVAPICH in the OpenFabrics SVN, I can only conclude that no one cares. If someone does care, please respond to my original questions included below ASAP (originally posted 23 Oct, 27 Oct, 1 Nov). I therefore make the motion to remove MVAPICH from the OpenFabrics SVN (all the source is still available via the OSU SVN and other distribution points). Specifically, I motion to do the following around COB tomorrow (7 Nov 2006): svn rm https://openib.org/svn/gen2/trunk/src/userspace/mpi Any objections? On Nov 1, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: Forwarding this to the mvapich-discuss list because it has gotten zero replies on the openib-general list. If someone from OSU could reply, it would be most helpful. Thanks. Begin forwarded message: From: Jeff Squyres [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: October 27, 2006 11:05:17 AM EDT To: openib openib-general@openib.org Subject: Re: [mvapich] Announcing the release of MVAPICH2 0.9.6 with on-demand connection management, multi-core optimized shared memory communication and memory hook support Any response from the OSU crew? Can someone provide a reason why MVAPICH is still in OpenIB's Subversion repository? Please see my original mail, below, for more detailed questions. Thanks. On Oct 23, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: On Oct 22, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Dhabaleswar Panda wrote: A stripped down version of this release is also available at the OpenIB SVN. I see this statement in every MVAPICH release notice and it continues to puzzle me. I understand that there was a use for an alternate distribution source before MVAPICH became open source. But now that the MVAPICH code bases are freely available from OSU via multiple mechanisms (anonymous SVN, tarball download, etc.), why is a stripped down version maintained in the OpenIB SVN? 1. What, exactly, is the difference between the MVAPICH available from OSU and the stripped down version in the OpenIB SVN? 2. Why would someone choose to download the stripped down version from the OpenIB SVN? Have any real users/customers done so? 3. What is the point of maintaining yet more flavors of MVAPICH -- aren't there enough already (multiple versions from OSU, more versions available from each IB vendor)? DK -- can you please explain? Thanks. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [mvapich-discuss] This is the last time I'm asking...
As I explained in my mail, no one had replied to any of the posts containing my very directed and specific questions (not even you -- and you still haven't), so I figured that no one cared. That's not an unreasonable assumption given that I posted the same questions 3 times and got silence in return. I am unaware of any special right required to make a motion. Are there some protocols (perhaps a la Robert's Rules of Order) that are typically used for making a motion? I haven't seen any...? The agenda for the SC Developer's Summit is already over-full. This conversation is fine to begin in e-mail; a good start would be answering my original questions. Thanks! On Nov 6, 2006, at 9:53 AM, Dhabaleswar Panda wrote: Jeff: May I know on with what `right' you are making this motion to remove the code. To have the code there was decided by the OpenIB community and the organizers. It needs to be decided by the community, not by an individual person. Let me suggest that we we discuss this at the Developers Summit at SC '06. If the Open Fabrics community no longer wants the code to be there and will prefer to download it from the OSU SVN site, we can proceed accordingly. Thanks, DK Having received no replies for 2 weeks as to why it is useful to have MVAPICH in the OpenFabrics SVN, I can only conclude that no one cares. If someone does care, please respond to my original questions included below ASAP (originally posted 23 Oct, 27 Oct, 1 Nov). I therefore make the motion to remove MVAPICH from the OpenFabrics SVN (all the source is still available via the OSU SVN and other distribution points). Specifically, I motion to do the following around COB tomorrow (7 Nov 2006): svn rm https://openib.org/svn/gen2/trunk/src/userspace/mpi Any objections? On Nov 1, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: Forwarding this to the mvapich-discuss list because it has gotten zero replies on the openib-general list. If someone from OSU could reply, it would be most helpful. Thanks. Begin forwarded message: From: Jeff Squyres [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: October 27, 2006 11:05:17 AM EDT To: openib openib-general@openib.org Subject: Re: [mvapich] Announcing the release of MVAPICH2 0.9.6 with on-demand connection management, multi-core optimized shared memory communication and memory hook support Any response from the OSU crew? Can someone provide a reason why MVAPICH is still in OpenIB's Subversion repository? Please see my original mail, below, for more detailed questions. Thanks. On Oct 23, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: On Oct 22, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Dhabaleswar Panda wrote: A stripped down version of this release is also available at the OpenIB SVN. I see this statement in every MVAPICH release notice and it continues to puzzle me. I understand that there was a use for an alternate distribution source before MVAPICH became open source. But now that the MVAPICH code bases are freely available from OSU via multiple mechanisms (anonymous SVN, tarball download, etc.), why is a stripped down version maintained in the OpenIB SVN? 1. What, exactly, is the difference between the MVAPICH available from OSU and the stripped down version in the OpenIB SVN? 2. Why would someone choose to download the stripped down version from the OpenIB SVN? Have any real users/customers done so? 3. What is the point of maintaining yet more flavors of MVAPICH -- aren't there enough already (multiple versions from OSU, more versions available from each IB vendor)? DK -- can you please explain? Thanks. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ mvapich-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.cse.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/mvapich-discuss -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
[openib-general] Fwd: [mvapich] Announcing the release of MVAPICH2 0.9.6 with on-demand connection management, multi-core optimized shared memory communication and memory hook support
Forwarding this to the mvapich-discuss list because it has gotten zero replies on the openib-general list. If someone from OSU could reply, it would be most helpful. Thanks. Begin forwarded message: From: Jeff Squyres [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: October 27, 2006 11:05:17 AM EDT To: openib openib-general@openib.org Subject: Re: [mvapich] Announcing the release of MVAPICH2 0.9.6 with on-demand connection management, multi-core optimized shared memory communication and memory hook support Any response from the OSU crew? Can someone provide a reason why MVAPICH is still in OpenIB's Subversion repository? Please see my original mail, below, for more detailed questions. Thanks. On Oct 23, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: On Oct 22, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Dhabaleswar Panda wrote: A stripped down version of this release is also available at the OpenIB SVN. I see this statement in every MVAPICH release notice and it continues to puzzle me. I understand that there was a use for an alternate distribution source before MVAPICH became open source. But now that the MVAPICH code bases are freely available from OSU via multiple mechanisms (anonymous SVN, tarball download, etc.), why is a stripped down version maintained in the OpenIB SVN? 1. What, exactly, is the difference between the MVAPICH available from OSU and the stripped down version in the OpenIB SVN? 2. Why would someone choose to download the stripped down version from the OpenIB SVN? Have any real users/customers done so? 3. What is the point of maintaining yet more flavors of MVAPICH -- aren't there enough already (multiple versions from OSU, more versions available from each IB vendor)? DK -- can you please explain? Thanks. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Static linking with libibverbs
On Nov 1, 2006, at 1:58 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: static linking actually can be made to work even with older library versions. See this HowTo (written on 02 of November, 2005). https://openib.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=HowToFAQ Are you talking about linking with -static or just with libibverbs.a? I'm talking about linking with -static, which has more requirements than just linking libibverbs.a and your_driver.a. I don't see mention of that in the thread that you cite on the HowToFAQ. There are issues with deep linker voodoo that prevent -static from working properly that Roland just fixed -- he had to change the order of loading up the plugins so that you wouldn't get multiple versions of system libraries loaded into the same process, such as one statically linked in and one dynamically linked in that was pulled in by an implicit linker dependency from the DSO that was dlopen()'ed. This causes Bad Things to happen; lions, tigers, and bears. Roland -- can you explain what you did? I think I could explain it, but better to come from the guy who did it so that the details will be right. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] psm.h not found
This sounds like a question for the Open MPI mailing list; this list is for OpenIB / OpenFabrics issues. MTL and PSM issues are Open MPI-specific -- they do not have anything to do with OpenIB / OpenFabrics. So I'll reply separately and move your thread over to that list... On Oct 31, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Mike Aho wrote: I cannot find psm.h which header file mtl_psm.h calls out in ompi v1.2 12372. Any hints on where I would get that? Thanks. --Mike Michael E. Aho Roadrunner Communications Stack Interconnect Lead MS: 45E/015-2 (Office D116) Rochester, MN 55901-7829 Phone (507) 253-6222, TL 553-6222 ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [mvapich] Announcing the release of MVAPICH2 0.9.6 with on-demand connection management, multi-core optimized shared memory communication and memory hook support
Any response from the OSU crew? Can someone provide a reason why MVAPICH is still in OpenIB's Subversion repository? Please see my original mail, below, for more detailed questions. Thanks. On Oct 23, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: On Oct 22, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Dhabaleswar Panda wrote: A stripped down version of this release is also available at the OpenIB SVN. I see this statement in every MVAPICH release notice and it continues to puzzle me. I understand that there was a use for an alternate distribution source before MVAPICH became open source. But now that the MVAPICH code bases are freely available from OSU via multiple mechanisms (anonymous SVN, tarball download, etc.), why is a stripped down version maintained in the OpenIB SVN? 1. What, exactly, is the difference between the MVAPICH available from OSU and the stripped down version in the OpenIB SVN? 2. Why would someone choose to download the stripped down version from the OpenIB SVN? Have any real users/customers done so? 3. What is the point of maintaining yet more flavors of MVAPICH -- aren't there enough already (multiple versions from OSU, more versions available from each IB vendor)? DK -- can you please explain? Thanks. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [mvapich] Announcing the release of MVAPICH2 0.9.6 with on-demand connection management, multi-core optimized shared memory communication and memory hook support
On Oct 22, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Dhabaleswar Panda wrote: A stripped down version of this release is also available at the OpenIB SVN. I see this statement in every MVAPICH release notice and it continues to puzzle me. I understand that there was a use for an alternate distribution source before MVAPICH became open source. But now that the MVAPICH code bases are freely available from OSU via multiple mechanisms (anonymous SVN, tarball download, etc.), why is a stripped down version maintained in the OpenIB SVN? 1. What, exactly, is the difference between the MVAPICH available from OSU and the stripped down version in the OpenIB SVN? 2. Why would someone choose to download the stripped down version from the OpenIB SVN? Have any real users/customers done so? 3. What is the point of maintaining yet more flavors of MVAPICH -- aren't there enough already (multiple versions from OSU, more versions available from each IB vendor)? DK -- can you please explain? Thanks. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] OFED 1.1 - Official Release
Tziporet -- Is OFED 1.1 going to be listed on www.openib.org? I see that the Downloads section still lists all the OFED 1.0 stuff. On Oct 20, 2006, at 6:25 AM, Tziporet Koren wrote: I am happy to announce that OFED 1.1 Official Release is now available. The release can be found under: https://openib.org/svn/gen2/branches/1.1/ofed/releases/ And later today it will be on the OpenFabrics download page: http://www.openfabrics.org/downloads.html. This release was done in a joint effort of the following companies: * Cisco * SilverStorm * Voltaire * QLogic * Intel * IBM * Mellanox Technologies I wish to thank all who contributed to the success of this release. Tziporet == = Release summary: The OFED software package is composed of several software modules intended for use on a computer cluster constructed as an InfiniBand network. OFED package contains the following components: === o OpenFabrics core and ULPs: - HCA drivers (mthca, ipath, ehca) - core - Upper Layer Protocols: IPoIB, SDP, SRP Initiator, iSER Host and uDAPL o OpenFabrics utilities: - OpenSM: InfiniBand Subnet Manager - Diagnostic tools - Performance tests o MPI: - OSU MPI stack supporting the InfiniBand interface - Open MPI stack supporting the InfiniBand interface - MPI benchmark tests (OSU BW/LAT, Intel MPI Benchmark, Presta) o Sources of all software modules (under conditions mentioned in the modules' LICENSE files) o Documentation Notes: 1. SDP is in beta quality. 2. ehca driver is in technology preview state. 3. All other OFED components are of production quality. Supported Platforms and Operating Systems = CPU architectures: * x86_64 * x86 * ia64 * ppc64 Linux Operating Systems: - RedHat EL4 up3: 2.6.9-34.ELsmp - RedHat EL4 up4: 2.6.9-42.ELsmp - SLES9 SP3: 2.6.5-7.244-smp - SLES10: 2.6.16.21-0.8-smp - kernel.org: 2.6.17.x and 2.6.18.x HCAs Supported == Mellanox HCAs: - InfiniHost - InfiniHost III Ex (both modes: with memory and MemFree) - InfiniHost III Lx Both SDR and DDR mode of the InfiniHost III family are supported. For official FW versions please see: http://www.mellanox.com/support/firmware_table.php Qlogic HCAs: - QHT6040 (PathScale InfiniPath HT-460) - QHT6140 (PathScale InfiniPath HT-465) - QLE6140 (PathScale InfiniPath PE-880) IBM HCAs: - GX Dual-port 4x IB HCA - GX Dual-port 12x IB HCA Switches Supported This release was tested with switches and gateways provided by the following companies: - Cisco - Voltaire - SilverStorm - Flextronics Third Party Packages The following third party packages have been tested with OFED 1.1: 1. Intel MPI, Version 2.0.1 - refresh, and Version 3.0 2. HP MPI OFED Sources: = Source repositories: Kernel: git://www.mellanox.co.il/~git/infiniband ofed_1_1 User: https://openib.org/svn/gen2/branches/1.1/src/userspace Main changed from OFED 1.0: - Kernel code based on 2.6.18 - High Availability in IPoIB and SRP (beta) - RDS was removed for the OFED package (to be added in future releases) - IBM low level driver (ehca) was added - MPI: - OSU MVAPICH: Message coalescing - Open MPI: Version was updated to v1.1.1 - MPI tests: Updated to latest versions from LLNL, Intel and OSU - Management: Added utilities and enhanced tools - Full support for ppc64 libraries (32 and 64 bits) See the attached are the release notes for details Tziporet Koren Software Director Mellanox Technologies mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel +972-4-9097200, ext 380 OFED_release_notes.txt ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Tools for development
On Oct 18, 2006, at 8:10 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: One feature that bugzilla has (and that seems to be disabled in openib bugzilla :() is mail integration, where I can Cc bugzilla and mail contents will get attached to bug report. I was hoping that new server will have this capability. Does trac have this? It appears that trac does not support this type of feature. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Tools for development
On Oct 17, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: It seems like trac can integrate with both SVN and git and would also provide us with integrated wiki capabilities. One feature that bugzilla has (and that seems to be disabled in openib bugzilla :() is mail integration, where I can Cc bugzilla and mail contents will get attached to bug report. I was hoping that new server will have this capability. Does trac have this? Good question; I don't know. I'll find out. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Tools for development
I was not on the call last week, but I understand that there was some discussion about exactly this point (ditch SVN and go 100% git): the decision was to stick with SVN for userspace stuff and stick with git for kernel stuff. However, this is a larger audience than was on the call. Is there a significant movement here from the developers to move to 100% git? (I don't really care) On Oct 17, 2006, at 12:21 PM, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: On 17:04 Tue 17 Oct , Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: Quoting r. Steve Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At the risk of opening a can of worms, is there any reason we don't move the user stuff into its own git tree? This would get rid of svn altogether... If we do, that should probably be multiple git trees - verbs, management, tests are all more or less independent and developed mostly by different people. Reasonable. And generally this should not be too bad. Sasha ___ 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 -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
[openib-general] New DNS name for openfabrics.org
Who runs the DNS for openfabrics.org? Could we get a new DNS A name added: staging.openfabrics.org -- for the new server? 69.55.231.195. Thanks! -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] Tools for development
On Oct 17, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: Developers had requested git 1.4, but Ubuntu had an older version. We went ahead and installed git from source. I'd prefer to stick to Ubuntu packages if possible. We have much to gain from newer versions - just look at gitweb change log. But my assumption here was that someone will keep the built from source tools updated. I don't have a problem alerting the list when new versions come out. If, as Roland suggested, we'll be stuck at this version, its better to stick with distro-supplied ones, assuming that *that* is updated in a timely fashion. So, I guess the question is how is the sytsem supported/updated? This is probably quite the operative question. I volunteered to setup and maintain trac if the group decides to use it. I don't know what the plan is for supporting the other software packages. I too, would side with Michael that the relatively-recent versions of svn (although this may become moot) and trac tend to be beneficial to developers (I assume the same is true for git, but I have no direct experience). Does anyone have any sysadmin cycles to do this kind of stuff? I would expect it to be a flurry of activity here in the beginning followed by short bursts of activity separated by long periods of nothing. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] OpenFabrics Developer Summit at SC06, Tampa Nov 16 - 17
I have copied this information to the wiki -- please make all updates there so that there is a single reference point to find all the information about the meeting. Thanks! https://openib.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Meeting+Minutes On Oct 15, 2006, at 5:02 PM, Bill Boas wrote: To all in the OpenFabrics Community We will be holding our first Developer Summit in the Tampa Convention Center courtesy of SC06 starting at 1.30PM in Room 17 on Thursday November 16, 2006. On Friday November 17, we will start in Room 13 at 8.00 AM and continue till 5.00PM. We have had to schedule into these time slots because no other usable space is available at any other times during the week of SC06! OpenFabrics will cater food and beverages for afternoon break and supper on Thursday, breakfast, lunch and two breaks on Friday. We will set up a registration site at Acteva to collect $$ to cover our out of pocket expenses – I’ll email out the URL for that site in the next day or two. Please review attached Strawman purposes, suggested attendees and agenda. Any changes or comments, please email them to the community for all to comment on please. The Summit has several dimensions and themes throughout our work there: 1) – consistency and robustness of the Linux and Windows software stacks for Release 2.0 of OpenFabrics; 2) - feature selection, development resources and timelines for Release 2.0; 3) - activities, features and processes of the Enterprise Working Group on OFED 1.x until Release 2.0 is ready hand-off to the EWG; 4) – enhancing the resources of the EWG to be ready for 2.0 it so that it may be subsequently be distributed as OFED 2.0. and adopted by the OpenFabrics vendor and customer communities for production use. This is a far too much work for just a day and half! PLEASE START NOW exchanging ideas for additional features, contact peer engineers from companies and customers to discuss work sizing, development resources, identify volunteer developers for items so that when we meet on the 16th we’re not starting from a blank sheet! Sujal Das, Johann George, Matt Leininger, Pramod Srivatsa, Hal Rosenstock, Tom Tucker and Bob Woodruff are leading the pre- meeting, STRAWMAN collation of requirements, feature prioritization, developer assignments, sizing and processes so that we have the list largely complete prior to the meeting and people know has already volunteered for items from the list. Bill Boas VP, Business Development | System Fabric Works [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 510-375-8840 Tampa Convention Center Layout.pdf SC06_OFA_Developer_Summit_Strawman_10_15_06.ppt ___ openfabrics-ewg mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openfabrics-ewg -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
[openib-general] Tools for development
Per the teleconference last week, I'd like to survey the developers about the tools that should be installed on the new OFA server (is there a plan to migrate there yet?). As I understand it (please correct me if I get this wrong): - The community has decided to stay with git for kernel level development -- Was there a plan for any consolidation of the various git repositories?) - The community decided to stay with svn for user space level development - Some version of git and svn are installed on the new server, but that's about it So there still needs to be some discussion about what other tools to install on the new server. There was an aborted discussion about moving from bugzilla to trac on the ewg list. See the following (the web archives didn't thread them totally properly): http://openib.org/pipermail/openfabrics-ewg/2006-October/001732.html http://openib.org/pipermail/openfabrics-ewg/2006-October/001739.html http://openib.org/pipermail/openfabrics-ewg/2006-October/001742.html It seems like trac can integrate with both SVN and git and would also provide us with integrated wiki capabilities. I personally have no problem with bugzilla, but I can attest to the Goodness of trac because we use it extensively in OMPI. See my post (above) for some details, but here's a rollup of pros/cons of switching to trac on the new server: Pros: +++ Integrate SVN and git commit messages with bug tracking (although we might need separate trac instances -- one for SVN and one for git) +++ Built-in wiki support -- one syntax for commit messages, the general wiki, and tickets +++ Track milestones and bugs/tickets together (i.e., help release procedures) +++ Trivially link between SVN/git commit messages, tickets, the wiki, and syntax-colored commit diffs +++ There is a tool for migrating Bugzilla db's to trac (although I have not tried it myself): http://trac.edgewall.org/browser/trunk/ contrib/bugzilla2trac.py +++ Same username/password used for both SVN and Trac Cons: --- A change from the existing system; people will need to learn something new --- Bugzilla ain't broke; we don't necessarily need to fix it --- Will need to map between current Bugzilla fields (product, component, status, resolution, url, hardware, os, version, priority, severity, cc) and new trac fields (component, milestone, severity, priority, type, version) Neutral points: === Neither bugzilla nor trac are on the new server; we need to choose something. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
[openib-general] Bugzilla component
Can we add an Open MPI bugzilla component? It will be for OFED packaging issues. Thanks. -- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems ___ 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
[openib-general] Question about locked pages
Greetings.
I'm writing up some FAQ entries for Open MPI and I'm adding a question
about ulimit -l for OpenIB (i.e., how users may wish to increase
their locked pages limit).
However, it's unclear to me exactly what needs to happen -- do users
both need to ulimit -l unlimited (or some large number) *and* set
/etc/sysctl.conf values for kernel.shmall and kernel.shmmax to
unlimited (or a large number)? Or does performing one of those obviate
the need for the other?
Here's my preliminary FAQ entry about this -- comments and suggestions
would be welcome:
http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=infiniband#ib-locked-pages
If someone could provide me with details (or point me to the relevant
docs), I'd greatly appreciate it. Specifically, I'd rather have
Correct information -- or HREF out to Correct information -- rather
than include hearsay and 3rd party this worked for me information
(which is what I have right now ;-) ).
Many thanks.
--
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} The Open MPI Project
{+} http://www.open-mpi.org/
___
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
Re: [openib-general] Question about locked pages
On Oct 31, 2005, at 12:39 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
Jeff However, it's unclear to me exactly what needs to happen --
Jeff do users both need to ulimit -l unlimited (or some large
Jeff number) *and* set /etc/sysctl.conf values for kernel.shmall
Jeff and kernel.shmmax to unlimited (or a large number)? Or does
Jeff performing one of those obviate the need for the other?
I believe the changing the ulimit for locked pages is all that is
needed. Does changing shmall and shmmax have any effect? I thought
those were limits on the total amount of shared memory allowed for the
system, not limits on locked/pinned memory.
Ditto (I thought those were shmem values / didn't think they had any
effect on Open IB). The information that I got was third-hand, which
is why I posted here to ask about it. :-)
I'll remove them from the FAQ entry -- any other comments?
--
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} The Open MPI Project
{+} http://www.open-mpi.org/
___
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
Re: [openib-general] Question about pinning memory
On Jul 25, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Roland Dreier wrote:
[...clarifications snipped...]
Jeff Is there any thought within the IB community to getting rid
Jeff of this whole memory registration issue at the user level?
Jeff Perhaps a la what Quadrics did (make the driver understand
Jeff virtual memory) or what Va Tech did (put in their own
Jeff kernel-level hooks to make malloc/free to do the Right
Jeff Things)? Handling all this memory registration stuff is
Jeff certainly quite a big chunk of code that every MPI (and IB
Jeff app) needs to handle. Could this stuff be moved down into
Jeff the realm of the IB stack itself? From an abstraction /
Jeff software architecture standpoint, it could make sense to
Jeff unify this handling in one place rather than N (MPI
Jeff implementations and other IB apps).
There's definitely thinking about this, but the correct approach is by
no means obvious. The Quadrics hooks seem too invasive to merge into
the kernel. I'm not familiar with the VA Tech work.
I agree that the kernel patches for Quadrics was somewhat painful (and
kernel-dependent, which was sometimes a problem).
I don't know the specifics of the VA Tech work either, but my [crude]
understanding was that they somehow made the memory [de-]registration
totally opaque to user level (to include the MPI library). I don't
know if it was hidden in the IB stack or in the kernel itself. Anyone
here know more details on this?
Unfortunately the IB and iWARP specs are written in terms of
applications handling memory registration. So we can't really expect
all RDMA hardware to have the hooks required to improve the memory
pinning interface. As it becomes clearer what hardware capabilities
are common, and what the userspace requirements are, we should be able
to improve things.
I know nothing about how the kernel works, now how typical IB stacks
work down in the kernel, so pardon me if this is a silly question: why
do hardware capabilities have anything to do with this? Isn't this a
kernel-level and/or software API issue?
More specifically, the IB stacks already do checks to see if memory is
registered before attempting send/receive operations.
...after thinking about this a little, I realize that for maximum
performance, they may not, so I guess I don't know that this is true.
But if it is, couldn't all memory [de-]registration be handled by the
IB stack? If it can, this would eliminate lookups and memory
management up in the MPI level, which would potentially help decrease a
little latency (i.e., the redundant lookups in the MPI layer could be
removed).
I realize that there's a bunch of if's in there, but it would certainly
be nice to not have to handle all this stuff. Indeed, the MPI problem
hasn't really been solved yet -- there have been a few proposals /
techniques used in the past, but none are really attractive (all have
benefits and drawbacks, and there are scenarios that break each of
them):
- use mallopt() to not let memory be returned to the OS
- include a memory manager (e.g., ptmalloc2) in the MPI to override
munmap/sbrk to catch when memory is returned to the OS
- use LD_PRELOAD to override munmap/sbrk
The method that Pete described in an earlier post could certainly be
interesting, especially if it could be tweaked to not have to make a
system call to check every memory reference (e.g., Gleb's suggestion of
a signal / callback / whatever). I would certainly take that over
today's mechanisms (the 3 mentioned above), but would still like to
push forward with the possibility of all the memory registration being
handled at a level lower than MPI.
--
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} The Open MPI Project
{+} http://www.open-mpi.org/
___
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
