On Friday 02 March 2012 14:58:45 Jeffrey Squyres wrote: > Ok. Good that there's no oversubscription bug, at least. :-) > > Did you see my off-list mail to you yesterday about building with an > external copy of hwloc 1.4 to see if that helps? Yes, I did - I answered as well. Our mail server seems to be something busy today...
Just for the record: Using hwloc-1.4 makes no difference. Matthias > > On Mar 2, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Matthias Jurenz wrote: > > To exclude a possible bug within the LSF component, I rebuilt Open MPI > > without support for LSF (--without-lsf). > > > > -> It makes no difference - the latency is still bad: ~1.1us. > > > > Matthias > > > > On Friday 02 March 2012 13:50:13 Matthias Jurenz wrote: > >> SORRY, it was obviously a big mistake by me. :-( > >> > >> Open MPI 1.5.5 was built with LSF support, so when starting an LSF job > >> it's necessary to request at least the number of tasks/cores as used > >> for the subsequent mpirun command. That was not the case - I forgot the > >> bsub's '-n' option to specify the number of task, so only *one* > >> task/core was requested. > >> > >> Open MPI 1.4.5 was built *without* LSF support, so the supposed > >> misbehavior could not happen with it. > >> > >> In short, there is no bug in Open MPI 1.5.x regarding to the detection > >> of oversubscription. Sorry for any confusion! > >> > >> Matthias > >> > >> On Tuesday 28 February 2012 13:36:56 Matthias Jurenz wrote: > >>> When using Open MPI v1.4.5 I get ~1.1us. That's the same result as I > >>> get with Open MPI v1.5.x using mpi_yield_when_idle=0. > >>> So I think there is a bug in Open MPI (v1.5.4 and v1.5.5rc2) regarding > >>> to the automatic performance mode selection. > >>> > >>> When enabling the degraded performance mode for Open MPI 1.4.5 > >>> (mpi_yield_when_idle=1) I get ~1.8us latencies. > >>> > >>> Matthias > >>> > >>> On Tuesday 28 February 2012 06:20:28 Christopher Samuel wrote: > >>>> On 13/02/12 22:11, Matthias Jurenz wrote: > >>>>> Do you have any idea? Please help! > >>>> > >>>> Do you see the same bad latency in the old branch (1.4.5) ? > >>>> > >>>> cheers, > >>>> Chris > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> devel mailing list > >>> de...@open-mpi.org > >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> devel mailing list > >> de...@open-mpi.org > >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > de...@open-mpi.org > > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
