Yeah, we'll want to move some of it into common - but a lot of that was already done, so I think it won't be that hard. Will explore
On May 7, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Joshua Ladd <jladd.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 Sounds like a good idea - but decoupling the two and adding all the right > selection mojo might be a bit of a pain. There are several places in OMPI > where the distinction between PMI1and PMI2 is made, not only in grpcomm. DB > and ESS frameworks off the top of my head. > > Josh > > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Artem Polyakov <artpo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good idea :)! > > среда, 7 мая 2014 г. пользователь Ralph Castain написал: > > Jeff actually had a useful suggestion (gasp!).He proposed that we separate > the PMI-1 and PMI-2 codes into separate components so you could select them > at runtime. Thus, we would build both (assuming both PMI-1 and 2 libs are > found), default to PMI-1, but users could select to try PMI-2. If the PMI-2 > component failed, we would emit a show_help indicating that they probably > have a broken PMI-2 version and should try PMI-1. > > Make sense? > Ralph > > On May 7, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > >> >> On May 7, 2014, at 7:56 AM, Joshua Ladd <jladd.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Ah, I see. Sorry for the reactionary comment - but this feature falls >>> squarely within my "jurisdiction", and we've invested a lot in improving >>> OMPI jobstart under srun. >>> >>> That being said (now that I've taken some deep breaths and carefully read >>> your original email :)), what you're proposing isn't a bad idea. I think it >>> would be good to maybe add a "--with-pmi2" flag to configure since >>> "--with-pmi" automagically uses PMI2 if it finds the header and lib. This >>> way, we could experiment with PMI1/PMI2 without having to rebuild SLURM or >>> hack the installation. >> >> That would be a much simpler solution than what Artem proposed (off-list) >> where we would try PMI2 and then if it didn't work try to figure out how to >> fall back to PMI1. I'll add this for now, and if Artem wants to try his more >> automagic solution and can make it work, then we can reconsider that option. >> >> Thanks >> Ralph >> >>> >>> Josh >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: >>> Okay, then we'll just have to develop a workaround for all those Slurm >>> releases where PMI-2 is borked :-( >>> >>> FWIW: I think people misunderstood my statement. I specifically did *not* >>> propose to *lose* PMI-2 support. I suggested that we change it to >>> "on-by-request" instead of the current "on-by-default" so we wouldn't keep >>> getting asked about PMI-2 bugs in Slurm. Once the Slurm implementation >>> stabilized, then we could reverse that policy. >>> >>> However, given that both you and Chris appear to prefer to keep it >>> "on-by-default", we'll see if we can find a way to detect that PMI-2 is >>> broken and then fall back to PMI-1. >>> >>> >>> On May 7, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Joshua Ladd <jladd.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Just saw this thread, and I second Chris' observations: at scale we are >>>> seeing huge gains in jobstart performance with PMI2 over PMI1. We CANNOT >>>> loose this functionality. For competitive reasons, I cannot provide exact >>>> numbers, but let's say the difference is in the ballpark of a full >>>> order-of-magnitude on 20K ranks versus PMI1. PMI1 is completely >>>> unacceptable/unusable at scale. Certainly PMI2 still has scaling issues, >>>> but there is no contest between PMI1 and PMI2. We (MLNX) are actively >>>> working to resolve some of the scalability issues in PMI2. >>>> >>>> Josh >>>> >>>> Joshua S. Ladd >>>> Staff Engineer, HPC Software >>>> Mellanox Technologies >>>> >>>> Email: josh...@mellanox.com >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: >>>> Interesting - how many nodes were involved? As I said, the bad scaling >>>> becomes more evident at a fairly high node count. >>>> >>>> On May 7, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Christopher Samuel <sam...@unimelb.edu.au> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> > Hash: SHA1 >>>> > >>>> > Hiya Ralph, >>>> > >>>> > On 07/05/14 14:49, Ralph Castain wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> I should have looked closer to see the numbers you posted, Chris - >>>> >> those include time for MPI wireup. So what you are seeing is that >>>> >> mpirun is much more efficient at exchanging the MPI endpoint info >>>> >> than PMI. I suspect that PMI2 is not much better as the primary >>>> >> reason for the difference is that mpriun sends blobs, while PMI >>>> >> requires that everything b > > > -- > С Уважением, Поляков Артем Юрьевич > Best regards, Artem Y. Polyakov > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/05/14716.php > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/05/14717.php
