ROCEv2 support #116
ROCEv2 support #116
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Venkatesan Mahalingam <[email protected]>
venkatmahalingam
requested review from
bhavini-gada,
sameerdell,
AshokDaparthi and
eddyatdell
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please confirm if only configuration of the new commands validation is enough as part of this feature validation. Also provide if there is any way to validate IB traffic creation and validation of such traffic using our current feature.
Thanks in advance for your time in reviewing my comments and getting back.
As part of the feature testing, we're simulating traffic congestion using IXIA to test PFC, I think, system test scope is to verify the lossless traffic from server/storage. |
| ##### 3.6.2.1.1 Initialize the buffer based on system defaults | ||
| Initialize the buffer defaults based on platform specific values (ingress/ingress buffer pools size, buffer profile, priority-group, queue..etc) | ||
| ``` | ||
| sonic(config)# qos buffer init |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will it create a default lossless profile if the command executed? Also please let us know if default lossless profile is macro?
| Configure shared head room size for the ingress buffer pool (fixed name - ingress_lossless_pool), other settings such as pool size and egress pool are automatically created during buffer init. | ||
| Please refer user guide for platform specific defaults and based on that use these CLIs to fine-tune the numbers for the use-case. | ||
| ``` | ||
| sonic(config)# qos buffer pool ingress_lossless_pool shared-headroom-size shared-headroom-size <xoff> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a difference in the config command and the no form of this command. Config command doesnt contain '-' and no form of the command contains '-' between 'buffer' and 'pool'. What is the correct command syntax 'buffer-pool' or 'buffer pool'? Please confirm.
Add support for ROCEv2 feature.