Check out #220 now; I updated it.
Sent from my phone. No type good.
On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:46 PM, "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
>> The point of the question isn't related to WHY eth8 is useless - just assume it is.
>> Assume it is UP, but useless for whatever reasons motivated writing FAQ #220.
>> It could be Terry's example of a port connected to the service processor.
>> The concern is what happens in this situation when the user, following the advice in the FAQ, passes an explicit setting for btl_tcp_if_exclude, which DOES NOT include virbr0?
>> They don't know it was there before, or that it needs to be there (the FAQ states that lo MUST be included).
>> So, by following the FAQ they don't resolve their problem.
>> OMPI ceases any attempts use of eth8 (or whatever), but loss of the implicit virbr0 from the exclude list results in their system attempting to use virbr0 (and thus continue to fail). Right?
>> Maybe the FAQ just needs an update to address my concern.
> Got it. Sure, I can update the faq to be a bit more loose in the definition of what must be excluded.
> Jeff Squyres
> For corporate legal information go to:
> devel mailing list