***SPAM*** Re: [ofw] Adding Performance Counters support for WinOF

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Moshe Haim <Moshe-ha at orbotech.com> wrote:
> The result of running perfquery -e:
> ibwarn: [20545] main: PerfMgt ClassPortInfo 0x0 extended counters not
> indicated
>
> perfquery: iberror: failed: perfextquery

Yes, the extended 64 bit counters are not supported on that device type :-(

No clue as to the data counter anomaly you mentioned: "increments are
around 1MB - so if my counter shows 0x64 it means ~100MB of data were
transferred." The low level counter is bytes * 4. Is this that counter
or some other aggregated counter in software ? Is some performance
manager running ? Are these counters being reset ?

-- Hal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:hal.rosenstock at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:23 PM
> To: Moshe Haim
> Cc: ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
> Subject: Re: [ofw] Adding Performance Counters support for WinOF
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Moshe Haim <Moshe-ha at orbotech.com>
> wrote:
>> I am using CentOS-5 with kernel 2.6.18-8.el5.
>> Using ofed_info the OFED version is: OFED-1.2.5.5
>>
>> From what I understood in previous E-Mails 64-bit counters are not
>> supported by the fw. And when I run perfquery I see that the counters
>> are 32-bit long.
>
> Would you try perfquery -e for the different devices that you want the
> counters ?
>
> -- Hal
>
>> Thanks,
>> Moshe.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:hal.rosenstock at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 6:31 PM
>> To: Moshe Haim
>> Cc: Sean Hefty; ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
>> Subject: Re: [ofw] Adding Performance Counters support for WinOF
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Moshe Haim <Moshe-ha at orbotech.com>
>> wrote:
>>> So it seems that with the new libraries I will be able to access the
>>> information directly (through API) - which will be easier for me.
>>>
>>> However, the issue of the counters filling up so fast remains as is.
>>
>> Are the extended (64 bit) counters supported ? If so, those won't fill
>> up so quickly.
>>
>>> I have made a few additional checks and updated my firmware. The
>>> counters on windows are counted in 4 bytes increments. I.e if my
>> counter
>>> shows 0x64 then it means that 100*4 (400) bytes were transferred.
>>
>> The data counters are spec'd in bytes*4.
>>
>>> However, when I checked the Linux system using perfquery I am getting
>> a
>>> totally different ratio.
>>> It appears that the counters there are still 32-bit wide, but the
>>> increments are around 1MB - so if my counter shows 0x64 it means
>> ~100MB
>>> of data were transferred.
>>
>> Are you sure ? What Linux version is being used ?
>>
>> -- Hal
>>
>>> Can someone please tell me:
>>> 1. Where does this difference come from?
>>> 2. Since we are talking about 10Gbit (and more) transfer rates, why
> do
>>> the counters count in (4x)bytes? Since most chances they will fill up
>>> very fast (as seen)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Moshe.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sean Hefty [mailto:sean.hefty at intel.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:33 PM
>>> To: Moshe Haim; ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
>>> Subject: RE: [ofw] Adding Performance Counters support for WinOF
>>>
>>>>I further discussed it with my manager who worked with the Linux
>>> version
>>>>and I was told that on Linux there was a problem with perfquery since
>>> it
>>>>was neither thread nor process safe - i.e. calling it concurrently
>> from
>>>>2 or more threads/processes would crash.
>>>>In addition, I can only assume perfquery is an executable.
>>>
>>> perfquery is an executable.  I'm not sure what's meant about being
>>> thread or
>>> process safe, since it's a stand alone program.
>>>
>>>>I also assume that perfquery uses one of the more "lower levels" dlls
>>>>mentioned below in order to get the performance counter information
>>>>(libibumad?).
>>>
>>> perfquery sends MADs that query the performance counters.  The
>> counters
>>> are
>>> returned in a MAD.  The MAD format and behavior is defined by the IB
>>> spec.
>>>
>>>>To be more concrete, if I'd want to directly access the counter
>>>>information I'll simply need to link my project against that DLL and
>>>>call an API method - is that assumption correct?
>>>
>>> You can send and process your own MADs.  In this case, you can write
>> to
>>> any of
>>> MAD libraries.
>>>
>>> - Sean
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ofw mailing list
>>> ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
>>> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw
>>>
>>
>