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

[Eli Dorfman (Voltaire)]

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.

>  
> 
>     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
> 
>