[openib-general] ucma into kernel.org

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz at voltaire.com>:
> Subject: Re: ucma into kernel.org
> 
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Quoting r. Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz at voltaire.com>:
> >> From our experience on order K nodes cluster, we did not have issues 
> >> with CM traffic, but: the CM traffic was not NxN but rather NxM where N 
> >> was (say) 1K and M was (say) 16, the app being cluster file system  - 
> >> Lustre /VIBNAL which is the Lustre IB layer for the voltaire gen1 stack.
> > 
> > Not sure what you mean by "did not have issues with CM traffic".  Did no
> > packets get lost? Did you run any other traffic on the same fabric,
> > concurrently?  I also don't really see how do gen1 tests have any bearing on
> > gen2 CMA.
> 
> The relevancy is simple:
> 
> + it is IB
> + there are order K IB CM connections
> + it is in production, with the main IB apps being MPI && cluster fs
> 
> I can't tell if part of the acceptance was "reconnecting" the file 
> system with much other IB traffic in the air.
> 
> Or.

So what are you saying? What did you learn from this system? What does this say
about CMA timeouts? That any timeout value is as good as any other? That
packets are never lost? This is the part that I am not getting.

-- 
MST