On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 12:27, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > I much prefer to fix the SM not to impose too-low limits on the number > > > of MCGs. Supporting O(# nodes) MCGs is really not a very onerous > > > requirement on the SM. > > > > Is this a MFT size issue or SM issue or both ? > > Well as we discussed before, the size of the MFT is really independent > of the # of MCGs supported. It's up to the SM how to allocate MLIDs, > and as long as all the switches in the fabric support at least one > MLID, then any number of MCGs can be managed by the SM.
Almost but not quite. > So I would say this is entirely an SM issue. I thought that mapping multiple MCGs to the same MLID requires that a set of the (group) parameters are the same. Is that the case for these IPv6 groups ? Is the only variable in those parameters the PKey ? I certainly agree that the SM can do a better job than simple 1:1 mapping. -- Hal > - R. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
