[openib-general] Should I use umad -or- osm

[shaharf]

Philip,
	I would say that there is not much in common between gen1 and
gen2 user mode mad interface. If you want your tools to works above
both, then osm vendor layer is your only choice. If you are planning to
use gen2 stacks only at some point you can use libumad.

If you need just a simple PM portcounter get query, then maybe osm
vendor api is a bit too "fat" for you. I would consider using gen1
interface directly. But still, this is your choice.

I guess that on the long run, openib gen2 will be the only maintained
openib version. Anyone thinks differently?

Shahar

> From: Philip Mucci [mailto:mucci at cs.utk.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 6:44 PM
> To: shaharf
> Cc: openib-general at openib.org
> Subject: RE: [openib-general] Should I use umad -or- osm
> 
> Hi Shahar,
> 
> Thanks for the info.
> 
> My needs are very 'simple'. Just to send and receive MADS to the PM
> agent on each adapter and switch in the network.
> 
> Ideally, I would like this to work for existing installations based on
> either OpenIB gen1 or Mellanox Gold. But I think for that, I need to
use
> the current osm_vendor_api.h interface.
> 
> How much will this interface change with gen2? will it export the same
> functions? Or will everything change
> 
> Lastly, will I be able to send/recv these MADS as a non-root user?
> 
> Thanks again, and the answer to your question is, yes, I can wait.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 17:52 +0200, shaharf wrote:
> > Hi Philip,
> >
> > 	I am currently implementing umad access library. It much simpler
> > then the osm_vendor api. I would recommend using umad library and
not
> > osm. As a matter of fact the current osm vendor layer does not
support
> > openib gen2. I am working on that either. Both the umad access
library
> > and the new osm vendor layer that uses it are not finished yet. I
guess
> > that I will need at least another week to reach a point where I can
> > release it. Even then it will change a lot until I will be finished
with
> > it.
> > The question is can you wait a little? I can give you a preliminary
> > version - but if you will use it you will have to modify your code
> > several each time the library interface is changed.
> > On the other hand, I would like to understand exactly what you need,
> > because you are the first "client" of the user mode stuff beside me.
> >
> > Shahar
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: openib-general-bounces at openib.org [mailto:openib-general-
> > > bounces at openib.org] On Behalf Of Philip Mucci
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 3:25 PM
> > > To: openib-general at openib.org
> > > Subject: [openib-general] Should I use umad -or- osm
> > >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > I've been tasked with developing a rough performance tool for IB
> > > networks. I've scanned the documentation and looks like the kind
of
> > data
> > > we're interested in can be obtained from the Mellanox ASICs.
> > >
> > > My question is a simple one:
> > >
> > > I've got to send/recv mads to enable and obtain the performance
> > counters
> > > from a user space tool...ideally non-root, but we'll work with
what we
> > > have.
> > >
> > > My current inclination has been to use the osm_vendor_api.h
functions
> > to
> > > do this work. However, the late work here done by Hal on the UMAD
> > access
> > > layer seems to be appropriate as well.
> > >
> > > Could someone elaborate on what you think the best (and most
> > > maintainable) approach to accomplishing this task might be?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Philip
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > openib-general mailing list
> > > openib-general at openib.org
> > > http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, please visit
> > http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-
> > > general