Having problems with message search?
I am actually thinking about sticking with
one dat.conf.
For example, OFED would change to look
like the following:
#
# DAT 1.2 and 2.0 configuration file
#
# Each entry should have the following
fields:
#
# <ia_name> <api_version> <threadsafety>
<default> <lib_path> \
# <provider_version> <ia_params>
<platform_params>
#
# For the uDAPL cma provder, specify <ia_params>
as one of the following:
# network address, network hostname,
or netdev name and 0 for port
#
# Simple (OpenIB-cma) default with netdev
name provided first on list
# to enable use of same dat.conf version
on all nodes
#
# Add examples for multiple interfaces and
IPoIB HA fail over, and bonding
#
OpenIB-cma u1.2 nonthreadsafe default
libdaplcma.so.1 dapl.1.2 "ib0 0" ""
OpenIB-cma-1 u1.2 nonthreadsafe default
libdaplcma.so.1 dapl.1.2 "ib1 0" ""
OpenIB-cma-2 u1.2 nonthreadsafe default
libdaplcma.so.1 dapl.1.2 "ib2 0" ""
OpenIB-cma-3 u1.2 nonthreadsafe default
libdaplcma.so.1 dapl.1.2 "ib3 0" ""
OpenIB-bond u1.2 nonthreadsafe default
libdaplcma.so.1 dapl.1.2 "bond0 0" ""
OpenIB-2-cma u2.0 nonthreadsafe default
libdaplcma.so.2 dapl.2.0 "ib0 0" ""
OpenIB-2-cma-1 u2.0 nonthreadsafe default
libdaplcma.so.2 dapl.2.0 "ib1 0" ""
OpenIB-2-cma-2 u2.0 nonthreadsafe default
libdaplcma.so.2 dapl.2.0 "ib2 0" ""
OpenIB-2-cma-3 u2.0 nonthreadsafe default
libdaplcma.so.2 dapl.2.0 "ib3 0" ""
OpenIB-2-bond u2.0 nonthreadsafe default
libdaplcma.so.2 dapl.2.0 "bond0 0" ""
From:
dat-discussions@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dat-discussions@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kanevsky, Arkady
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007
5:47 AM
To:
dat-discussions@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Lentini, James
Subject: RE: [dat-discussions]
RFC: DAT 1.2 and 2.0 library build and installation
how do two proposed way impact
configuration files?
Thanks,
Arkady Kanevsky
email: arkady@netapp.
Network
Appliance
Inc.
phone: 781-768-5395
From: Davis,
Arlin R [mailto:arlin.r.davis@intel. com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 5:29 PM
To: dat-discussions@yahoogroups. com
Cc: Lentini, James
Subject: [dat-discussions] RFC: DAT 1.2 and 2.0 library build and installationI am thinking about allowing coexistence of 1.2 and 2.0 libraries for the next release. This will insure that we continue to support 1.2 providers while new providers needing 2.0 features can also install and run on the same system. Does anyone see p
lems with this or have any suggestions other then separate naming conventions? I am thinking we will have to build/install 2.0 as dat2.conf, libdat2.so, libdapl2.so, and the development package as /usr/include/ rob dat2/include.
comments?
Thanks,
-arlin
Offline 
Send Email