Hal Rosenstock wrote:
quoted text
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Doron Shoham <dorons@voltaire.com
> <mailto:dorons@voltaire.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Doron Shoham <dorons@voltaire.com
>     <mailto:dorons@voltaire.com>
>     > <mailto:dorons@voltaire.com <mailto:dorons@voltaire.com>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     ibcheckroutes validates route between all hosts in the fabric.
>     >     This script finds all leaf switches (switches that are
>     connected to
>     >     HCAs)
>     >
> 
>     This script parses the output of ibnetdiscoer.
>     It finds all leaf switches (from the topology file
>     generated by ibnetdiscover).
>     The it checks if a route exists between all leaf switches
>     using ibtracert.
> 
>  
> Why leaf switches (and not CAs) ? How are they determined (from the
> ibnetdiscover output) ?

because there are much less combinations (routes) of leaf switches than CAs.
And since we assume that opensm routing builds lid matrix based on switch connectivity than if two switches have route between each other then all CAs that are connected to them will have route to each other.
In ibnetdiscover you can see to which switch (LID) each CA is connected.

quoted text
>  
> 
> 
>     >
>     > CAs or HCAs ?
>     CAs
>     >
>     > What about switch port 0s ?
>     It checks connectivity only between leaf switches (not all switches).
>     I assume that traffic is generated only between CAs and therefor
>     connectivity between other switches (not leaf switches) does not
>     important.
> 
>  
> It's important for a couple of reasons: first PMA access on switches and
> secondly it's an IBA requirement although some OpenSM routing protocols
> ignore this. IMO it should be an option (not the default) to add these
> LIDs in too to the ones checked.

Ok, we can this option once this patch is applied.
Also it may be better to provide the switch LID(s) from which PM is running to reduce number of tested routes.

Eli

quoted text
>  
>  
> 
> 
>     >
>     >
>     >     and runs ibtracert between them.
>     >     When using various routing algorithms (e.g. up-down),
>     >
>     >
>     > With which routing algorithms has this been tried ?
>     I assume that from complexity perspective, the routing algorithms
>     calculate
>     routes only between leaf switches and not between all CAs.
>     Then it adds one hop for all CAs connected to the leaf switches.
> 
>  
> It depends on the routing algorithm (some violate this) but the basic
> IBA requirement is:
> *
> 
> C14-62.1.4:
> 
> *From every endport within the subnet, the SM *shall *provide at least
> one reversible path to every other endport.
> 
> -- Hal
> 
> 
>     I've tested it with up-down but it really doesn't matter which
>     routing algorithm you are using.
>     It just check the routes between leaf switches (and if the routing
>     algorithm behave as above, it means that it checks all CAs
>     connectivity).
> 
>     >
>     > -- Hal
>     >
>     >
>     >     if fabric topology is not suitable there will be no
>     >     routes between some nodes.
>     >     It reports when the route exists between source and
>     destination LIDs.
>     >
>     >     Signed-off-by: Doron Shoham <dorons@voltaire.com
>     <mailto:dorons@voltaire.com>
>     >     <mailto:dorons@voltaire.com <mailto:dorons@voltaire.com>>>
>     >
>     >
>     > <snip...>
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general@lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
> 
> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general

To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general