[ofa-general] [PATCH] infiniband-diags/scripts: Add ibcheckroutes to scripts

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Eli Dorfman (Voltaire) <
dorfman.eli at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Eli Dorfman (Voltaire)
> > <dorfman.eli at gmail.com <mailto:dorfman.eli at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Doron Shoham <dorons at voltaire.com
> >     <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com>
> >     > <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> >     >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >     > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Doron Shoham
> >     <dorons at voltaire.com <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com>
> >     >     <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com>>
> >     >     > <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com>
> >     <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com <mailto:dorons at 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) ?
> >
> >
> >
> > How are the leaf switches determined (from core switches) in the
> > ibnetdiscover output ? Is it any switch which has an attached CA versus
> > any switch which has no attached CAs ?
> yes
>
> >
> >
> >
> >     because there are much less combinations (routes) of leaf switches
> >     than CAs.
> >
> >
> > So is the check is that there are routes between all the leaf switches ?
> yes
> >
> >
> >     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.
> >
> >
> > I can't parse this sentence. Also, this should have nothing to do with
> > OpenSM as it is SM independent AFAIT.
> since we check routes between leaf switches LIDs, for opensm this also
> assures that we have route between CAs that are attached to them.
>

Not quite. It assures there should be a path but not necessarily a route as
all the LFTs are not checked with the CA port LIDs.

-- Hal


>
> >
> >
> >     In ibnetdiscover you can see to which switch (LID) each CA is
> connected.
> >
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> >
> >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >     > 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.
> >
> >
> > I have some other specific comments on the patch.
> >
> >
> >     Also it may be better to provide the switch LID(s) from which PM is
> >     running to reduce number of tested routes.
> >
> >
> > This is in the vein of only checking leaf switch connectivity but is not
> > the IBA general requirement.
> >
> > -- Hal
> >
> >
> >
> >     Eli
> >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >     >     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 at voltaire.com
> >     <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com>
> >     >     <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com>>
> >     >     >     <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com>
> >     <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com <mailto:dorons at voltaire.com>>>>
> >     >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >     > <snip...>
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > general mailing list
> >     > general at lists.openfabrics.org <mailto:
> general at lists.openfabrics.org>
>  >     > http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
> >     >
> >     > To unsubscribe, please visit
> >     http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/attachments/20090914/f9dffec4/attachment.html>