[openib-general] RE: IB Diagnositic Tools

[Hal Rosenstock]

Hi again Eitan,

On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 14:29, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
> Hi Hal,
> 
> > 
> > Is the OpenSM vendor layer available in Windows for OpenIB or is
> this
> > something which needs to be developed ?
> [EZ] It is available (the code was part of IBAL but needed some fixes
> etc).

Needed or still needs some fixes ?
 
> > > Since this layer is already available on both Windows and Linux
> stacks
> > > it could allow us to have the same code tree for both.
> > 
> > Will the Linux distros take it this way (with #ifdef OS)

> [EZ] The different implementations are already included in the OpenSM
> code on the OpenIB trunk. They are not named Win/Linux but IBAL, TS. I
> propose we perform some restructuring where each "vendor" has its own
> package and all of them are actually made into the same "lib" name.
> Such that for OpenSM build it should not make any difference which
> vendor it is linked with. 

Currently, the OpenIB build (for Linux) just deals with the OpenIB
vendor layer. The others are there for tracking to OpenSM releases and
are not part of the build (or current requirements for the build).
 
> > Not sure exactly what you have in mind here but there is something
> like
> > this on the TODO list. How are GUIDs and LIDs aggregated into a name
> ?
> > Is this SystemImageGUID ?
> [EZ] I mean using topology file to map discovered topology to
> specified topology and thus enable the use of the user given names for
> the various systems (instead of guids).

The current OpenIB topology file has a place where these annotations can
be made (and displayed).

> > Not sure what you mean exactly by MAD and topology manipulations
> layers.
> > Are there different tools ? What do they provide different from the
> > current OpenIB diagnostics ?
> [EZ] The MAD layer provides scripting interface for sending receiving
> mads of the various classes. 
> The analysis layers perform topology matching, LFT traversals, credit
> loop analysis, MFT connectivity checks, routing hops histograms, etc.

This brings in more things that are not currently ported to OpenIB and
also there are some issues with some of these tools.
 
> > > If there is an interest in these tools we can provide an open
> version
> > > of those in week or two.
> > 
> > Will the development then be done in the OpenIB tree or will the
> drop
> > model be used ? On the Linux side, the community desires the tools
> to be
> > built with autotools.

> [EZ] The idea is to move the current tools into OpenIB and use OpenIB
> as the development environment. This includes OpenSM and the MAD
> layers.

> All should be autotools.

Glad to hear it.

-- Hal