[openib-general] [RFC] OpenSM Interactive Console

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 14:38, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
> Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 03:08, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
> > 
> >>I would suggest to use SNMP for the tasks below. IETF IPoIB group has
> >>defined an SNMP MIB that can support the required functionality below.
> > 
> > 
> > The IETF SNMP MIBs are one way of presenting the information to the
> > outside world. There are other possible management interfaces. The SNMP
> > MIB instrumentation would need to use lower layer APIs to get this
> > information out of the SM.
> Yes but the IETF SM MIB is the only one that is close to a standard way.
> It does not require low level interface if it will integrate into the OpenSM code.
> One way to do it is buy extending OpenSM with an AgentX interface.
> 
> IMO one clear advantage of using SNMP for SM integration is that the code will work with any SM that is IETF compliant.
> Also if you want to write a "client server" type of application on top of an SM you
> can either stick to sending MADs which translate into SA client based application or
> you better stay with some known protocol for management (like SNMP) and not develop yet another protocol for
> doing exactly the same things as SNMP already supports.

There are limitations in the SNMP MIBs. One is that they are RO so they
are more for monitoring. Also, many environments do not use SNMP. It is
unclear how much of a requirement it is to manage any SM or how many
other SMs support the SM MIB. (There are other IB associated MIBs too).
 
> >>Everything but the dynamic partitioning (OpenSM does not have
> >>partition manager to this moment)
> > 
> > 
> > What Troy meant by partitioning is not necessarily IB partitioning.
> How are you sure about that? Troy - please comment.

I think you missed an email on this.
 
> >>and forwarding of Performance
> >>Monitoring traps (which are generated by the PM) can be done through
> >>osmsh or through SA client today.
> > 
> > 
> > What PerfMgr are you referring to ?
> No specific one. But the specification does not require the SM too.

Huh ? What spec ? An SM is required in a subnet. There is no subnet
without this. There is a subnet without a PerfMgr.

> For various reasons (like load) it might make more sense to have the PM distributed.

Sure. Also, the PerfMgr need not be colocated with the SM anyhow.

> Anyway, my point is that the SM is not the owner of PM trap reporting. It is the PM that
> should support Reporting (I.e  InformInfo registration and Trap forwarding) for PM traps.
> But the spec does not define such traps anyway.

My point was that the PerfMgr is beyond the IBA spec. It is only the PMA
that is defined and has no traps so these will all need synthesis by the
PerfMgr.

-- Hal