Date: | Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:59:23 -0800 (PST) |
---|---|
From: | arrvindh shriraman <arrvindh_shriraman@xxxxxxxxx> |
Subject: | [Gems-users] link ordering |
I took a look at that message. But Brad seems to make a distinction between upward and downward links (unidirectional) wheras any link in FILE_SPECIFIED as you say seems to be bi directional. So if if wanted to make them unidirectional for lets say 4 nodes fanout of 2. ext_node:L1Cache:0 int_node:0 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 ext_node:L1Cache:1 int_node:1 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 ext_node:L1Cache:1 int_node:2 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 ext_node:L1Cache:1 int_node:3 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 int_node:0 int_node:4 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 int_node:1 int_node:4 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 int_node:2 int_node:5 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 int_node:3 int_node:5 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 int_node:4 int_node:6 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 int_node:5 int_node:6 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 int_node:6 int_node:7 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 int_node:6 int_node:8 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 int_node:7 int_node:0 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 int_node:7 int_node:1 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 int_node:8 int_node:2 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 int_node:8 int_node:3 link_latency:1 bw_multiplier:64 Wouldn't this do the trick ? I have seperate uplink switches 4,5 and downlink switches 7,8. Nodes are 0,1,2,3. switch 6 is the ordering root switch Thanks
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. |
[← Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread→] |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [Gems-users] link direction, Mike Marty |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [Gems-users] link direction, arrvindh shriraman |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [Gems-users] link direction, Mike Marty |
Next by Thread: | [Gems-users] LogTM: failed assertion 'isReady(request)', yoo |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] |