I've marked the first week. 2016-08-26 19:26 GMT+07:00 George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu>:
> Let's go regular for a period and then adapt. > > For everybody interested in the performance discussion, I setup a doodle > for next week. The dates themselves are not important, we need a regular > timeslot. Please answer with the idea that we do 4 weeks in a row and then > assess the situation and dece if we need to continue, decrease the > frequency or declare the problem solved. Here is the participation link: > http://doodle.com/poll/w4fkb9gr3h2q5p6v > > George. > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Artem Polyakov <artpo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> This is a good idea. We also have data with SM/Vader to discuss. I'll >> send them later this week. >> >> Do you think of regular calls or per agreement? >> >> пятница, 26 августа 2016 г. пользователь George Bosilca написал: >> >>> We are serious about this. However, we not only have to define a set of >>> meaningful tests (which we don't have yet) but also decide the conditions >>> in which they are executed, and more critically what additional information >>> we need to make them reproducible, understandable and comparable. >>> >>> We started discussion on these topics during the developers meeting few >>> weeks ago, but we barely define what we think will be necessary for trivial >>> tests such as single threaded bandwidth. It might be worth having a regular >>> phone call (in addition to the Tuesday morning) to make progress. >>> >>> George. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Artem Polyakov <artpo...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> If we are serious about this problem I don't see why we can't create a >>>> repo for this data and keep the history of all measurements. >>>> >>>> Is there any chance that we will not came up with well defined set of >>>> tests and drop the ball here? >>>> >>>> пятница, 26 августа 2016 г. пользователь George Bosilca написал: >>>> >>>> Arm repo is a good location until we converge to a well-defined set of >>>>> tests. >>>>> >>>>> George. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Artem Polyakov <artpo...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> That's a good question. I have results myself and I don't know where >>>>>> to place them. >>>>>> I think that Arm's repo is not a right place to collect the data. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff, can we create the repo in open mpi organization on github or do >>>>>> we have something appropriate already? >>>>>> >>>>>> четверг, 25 августа 2016 г. пользователь Christoph Niethammer написал: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Artem, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the links. I tested now with 1.10.3, 2.0.0+sm/vader >>>>>>> performance regression patch under >>>>>>> https://github.com/hjelmn/ompi/commit/4079eec9749e47dddc6acc >>>>>>> 9c0847b3091601919f.patch >>>>>>> and master. I will do the 2.0.1rc in the next days as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it possible to add me to the results repository at github or >>>>>>> should I fork and request you to pull? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Christoph >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Artem Polyakov" <artpo...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> To: "Open MPI Developers" <devel@lists.open-mpi.org> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 5:13:30 PM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Performance analysis proposal >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, Christoph >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please, check https://github.com/open-mpi/om >>>>>>> pi/wiki/Request-refactoring-test for the testing methodology and >>>>>>> https://github.com/open-mpi/2016-summer-perf-testing >>>>>>> for examples and launch scripts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2016-08-23 21:20 GMT+07:00 Christoph Niethammer < nietham...@hlrs.de >>>>>>> > : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just came over this and would like to contribute some results from >>>>>>> our system(s). >>>>>>> Are there any specific configure options you want to see enabled >>>>>>> beside --enable-mpi-thread-multiple? >>>>>>> How to commit results? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Christoph Niethammer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Arm Patinyasakdikul (apatinya)" < apati...@cisco.com > >>>>>>> To: "Open MPI Developers" < devel@lists.open-mpi.org > >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 8:41:06 PM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Performance analysis proposal >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey Artem, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for the benchmark prototype. I have created the discussion >>>>>>> page here : https://github.com/open-mpi/20 >>>>>>> 16-summer-perf-testing/issues/1 . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * There, I have single threaded and multithreaded performance posted. >>>>>>> * The script I used is now in the repo (also in the discussion page) >>>>>>> * Result with openib will come up probably next week. I have to >>>>>>> access UTK machine for that. >>>>>>> * I did some test and yes, I have seen some openib hang in >>>>>>> multithreaded case. >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> Arm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: devel < devel-boun...@lists.open-mpi.org > on behalf of Artem >>>>>>> Polyakov < artpo...@gmail.com > >>>>>>> Reply-To: Open MPI Developers < devel@lists.open-mpi.org > >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:42 PM >>>>>>> To: Open MPI Developers < devel@lists.open-mpi.org > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Performance analysis proposal >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, Arm! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good to have vader results (I haven't tried it myself yet). Few >>>>>>> comments/questions: >>>>>>> 1. I guess we also want to have 1-threaded performance for the >>>>>>> "baseline" reference. >>>>>>> 2. Have you tried to run with openib, as I mentioned on the call I >>>>>>> had some problems with it and I'm curious if you can reproduce in your >>>>>>> environment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Github issue sounds good for me! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2016-07-29 12:30 GMT+07:00 Arm Patinyasakdikul (apatinya) < >>>>>>> apati...@cisco.com > : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I added some result to https://github.com/open-mpi/20 >>>>>>> 16-summer-perf-testing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The result shows much better performance from 2.0.0 and master over >>>>>>> 1.10.3 for vader. The test ran with Artem’s version of benchmark on OB1, >>>>>>> single node, bind to socket. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We should have a place to discuss/comment/collaborate on results. >>>>>>> Should I open an issue on that repo? So we can have github style >>>>>>> commenting/referencing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Arm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/28/16, 3:02 PM, "devel on behalf of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" < >>>>>>> devel-boun...@lists.open-mpi.org on behalf of jsquy...@cisco.com > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >On Jul 28, 2016, at 6:28 AM, Artem Polyakov < artpo...@gmail.com > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Jeff and others, >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> 1. The benchmark was updated to support shared memory case. >>>>>>> >> 2. The wiki was updated with the benchmark description: >>>>>>> https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Request-refactoring-te >>>>>>> st#benchmark-prototype >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >Sweet -- thanks! >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> Let me know if we want to put this prototype to some general >>>>>>> place. I think it makes sense. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >I just created: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > https://github.com/open-mpi/2016-summer-perf-testing >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >Want to put it there? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >Arm just ran a bunch of tests today and will be committing a bunch >>>>>>> of results in there shortly. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >-- >>>>>>> >Jeff Squyres >>>>>>> > jsquy...@cisco.com >>>>>>> >For corporate legal information go to: >>>>>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>>>>> >devel mailing list >>>>>>> > devel@lists.open-mpi.org >>>>>>> > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> devel mailing list >>>>>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >>>>>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> С Уважением, Поляков Артем Юрьевич >>>>>>> Best regards, Artem Y. Polyakov >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> devel mailing list >>>>>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >>>>>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> devel mailing list >>>>>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >>>>>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> С Уважением, Поляков Артем Юрьевич >>>>>>> Best regards, Artem Y. Polyakov >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> devel mailing list >>>>>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >>>>>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> devel mailing list >>>>>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >>>>>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> Best regards, Artem Polyakov >>>>>> (Mobile mail) >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> devel mailing list >>>>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >>>>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ----- >>>> Best regards, Artem Polyakov >>>> (Mobile mail) >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> devel mailing list >>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> ----- >> Best regards, Artem Polyakov >> (Mobile mail) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >> > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@lists.open-mpi.org > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > -- С Уважением, Поляков Артем Юрьевич Best regards, Artem Y. Polyakov
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
