On Sep 3, 2010, at 3:38 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> However, going over the existing BTLs I can see that some BTLs do not correctly set this value:
> BTL Bandwidth Auto-detect Status
> Elan 2000 NO Correct
> GM 250 NO Doubtful
> MX 2000/10000 YES (Mbs) Correct (before the patch)
> OFUD 800 NO Doubtful
> OpenIB 2000/4000/8000 YES (Mbs) Correct (multiplied by the active_width)
> Portals 1000 NO Doubtful
> SCTP 100 NO Conservative value (correct)
> Self 100 XXX Correct (doesn't matter anyway)
> SM 9000 NO Correct
> TCP 100 NO Conservative value (correct)
> UDAPL 225 NO Incorrect
Now that that patch has been rolled back out, did we come to conclusion here?
- OFUD: why do we still even have this?
- Portals: does it matter if it gets it wrong? No one will ever multi-rail with it.
- TCP: we can add auto-detect code for this (But doesn't have to be right away -- i.e., don't make 1.5.0 wait for it).
- UDAPL: I don't think anyone will multi-rail udapl with anything.
Was the *real* problem that Brice's OpenFabrics bandwidth was auto-detected incorrectly somehow?
For corporate legal information go to: