From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Netes Subject: Re: [opensm] RFC: new routing options (repost) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 11:07:36 +0300 Message-ID: <20110706080736.GD18903@calypso.voltaire.com> References: <1297388014.18394.302.camel@auk59.llnl.gov> <1300915898.3128.168.camel@auk59.llnl.gov> <20110406140929.GA21920@calypso.voltaire.com> <1302113667.4906.336.camel@auk59.llnl.gov> <1302137816.4906.403.camel@auk59.llnl.gov> <20110704105259.GA6084@calypso.voltaire.com> <1309884814.11479.29.camel@auk59.llnl.gov> <20110705170738.GC18903@calypso.voltaire.com> <1309887969.11479.48.camel@auk59.llnl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1309887969.11479.48.camel-akkeaxHeDKRliZ7u+bvwcg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Albert Chu Cc: Jared Carr , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Hi Al, On 10:46 Tue 05 Jul , Albert Chu wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 10:07 -0700, Alex Netes wrote: > > Hi Al, > > > > On 09:53 Tue 05 Jul , Albert Chu wrote: > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > Thanks. Are you still reviewing the remote_guid_sorting patch (the 2/4 > > > patch)? Or do you feel there is work there that needs to be done? > > > > > > > I thought we agreed that same goal could be achieved using > > route_port_ordering_file (dimn_ports_file) parameter, which is more general > > than remote_guid_sorting. > > The route_port_ordering_file is capable of doing it, however the > complexity of setting it up would be far past the knowledge base for the > average system administrator. It would be far more difficult than > setting up the 'guid_routing_order' file or 'dimn_ports_file' for DOR. > > To me, the generic 'route_port_ordering_file' is an option most useful > for special cases. > > We've been using 'remote_guid_sorting' for almost a year now on multiple > clusters. Without much effort, it gives all the clusters a nice 5-7% > speedup. > I understand that using guid_routing_order, improves performance. I just think, that 'guid_routing_order' can bring benefit in a rear cases. What if someone would think that reverse guid routing or any other function on peers node GUIDs ports will improve its' performance, should we keep all of these options? I created a simple script, that prepares route_port_ordering file from ibnetdiscover. It sorts switches ports, based on a remote peer GUIDs. It's pretty nit, but it does the job. #!/bin/bash IBNET_OUT="/tmp/port_ordering_ibnetdisocver" TMP_FILE="/tmp/port_order_tmp" switch=0 skip=0 `ibnetdiscover > $IBNET_OUT` while read line do is_switch_header=`echo $line | grep -c ^Switch` if [ $is_switch_header -eq 1 ]; then guid=`echo $line | awk '{ print "0x" substr($3, 4, 16)}'` switch=1 skip=0 elif [ $switch -eq 1 -a "$line" == "" ]; then switch=0 skip=1 echo $guid `sort $TMP_FILE | awk '{print $2}' | xargs` rm -fr $TMP_FILE elif [ $switch -eq 1 ]; then echo $line | grep "S-" | awk '{print "0x" substr($2, 4, 16) " " substr($1,2,match($1,"]")-2)}' >> $TMP_FILE fi done < $IBNET_OUT rm -fr $IBNET_OUT -- Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html