When we added 'options lnet networks=o2ib(ib0),tcp1(ib0)' to the MDS and the 
OSS's, communications from the nodes using tcp1 would not be returned by the 
OSS's. We need to use two protocols over the same interface. Is this possible?

Bob Hayes
HPC Sys. Admin.
Intel Corp               Software & Services Group/DRD/CRT-DC
DP3-307-H7            Tel:  (253)371-3040
2800 N Center Dr    Fax: (253)371-4647
DuPont WA 98327   [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

From: Cliff White [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:28 AM
To: Hayes, Bob
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Seeking LNET router recomendations

Or to put it another way, if your OSS systems can already 'see' both IB and 
IPoIB networks the most cost
effective, high performance solution would be to add the necessary interface 
and put your MDS/MGS on both networks also.
No need for routers, no performance impact.
cliffw

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Hayes, Bob 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Are there any recommendations or guidelines for sizing a LNET routing facility.
~400 nodes, 8 OSS (dual socket E5 w/48GB RAM), 24 OST (10spindle RAID6 over 
SRP), 1 MGS/MDT
How much load does LNET routing put on a system?
If I make the 8 OSS systems do double duty as IB to IPoIB routers, will it have 
much impact on performance?

Bob Hayes
HPC Sys. Admin.
Intel Corp               Software & Services Group/DRD/CRT-DC
DP3-307-H7            Tel:  (253)371-3040<tel:%28253%29371-3040>
2800 N Center Dr    Fax: (253)371-4647<tel:%28253%29371-4647>
DuPont WA 98327   [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>


_______________________________________________
Lustre-discuss mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss



--
cliffw
Support Guy
WhamCloud, Inc.
www.whamcloud.com<http://www.whamcloud.com>


_______________________________________________
Lustre-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss

Reply via email to