Patrick Geoffray wrote:
> Lenny Verkhovsky wrote:
>> We would like to add SDP support for OPENMPI.
>> SDP can be used to accelerate job start ( oob over sdp ) and IPoIB
> I fail to see the reason to pollute the TCP btl with IB-specific SDP stuff.
> For the oob, this is arguable, but doesn't SDP allow for *transparent*
> socket replacement at runtime ? In this case, why not use this mechanism
> and keep the code clean ?
Furthermore, why would a user choose to use SDP and TCP/IPoIB when the
OpenIB BTL is available using the native verbs interface? FWIW, this
same sort of question gets asked of the uDAPL BTL -- the answer there
being that the uDAPL BTL runs in places the OpenIB BTL does not. Is
this true here as well?