Currently Catalyst sends its data to pvserver through sockets which will not likely not utilize an HPC's fast interconnect. We hope to address this in the future using ADIOS but I don't have a timetable on when that will be done.
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Kolja Petersen <petersenko...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Andy Bauer <andy.ba...@kitware.com> > wrote: > >> FYI: pvserver will likely be run in a separate MPI job if you're doing a >> Live connection. >> > > Yes, so the pvserver MPI job will have one MPI_COMM_WORLD, and the > Catalyst enabled simulation will have a different MPI_COMM_WORLD. > > The question is how does Catalyst send its data to the other communicator? > Afaik, their is no connection between the two unless the second > communicator is spawned from the first by MPI_Comm_spawn(). > Kolja > > >> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Andy Bauer <andy.ba...@kitware.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Catalyst by default uses MPI_COMM_WORLD of the existing MPI library that >>> the simulation code is linked with. You can use another MPI communicator as >>> well. An example of that is in the >>> Examples/Catalyst/MPISubCommunicatorExample >>> source directory. >>> >>> Best, >>> Andy >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Kolja Petersen <petersenko...@gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> I am trying to understand a Catalyst implementation detail. >>>> >>>> Because parallel Catalyst may transfer huge data to a parallel >>>> pvserver, I thought the Catalyst processes would have themselves added to >>>> the pvserver's MPI communicator. However, MPI_Comm_spawn() is the only >>>> function that I know of for this task, and I find "MPI_Comm_spawn" nowhere >>>> in the code (searched case insensitive). >>>> >>>> I thought that the standard Catalyst TCP port 22222 was only used for >>>> control messages between Catalyst and pvserver, and data exchange would go >>>> via MPI. But apparently there is no MPI connection between Catalyst and >>>> pvserver, and all data are sent via TCP:22222, which could explain observed >>>> network bottlenecks. >>>> >>>> Can somebody clarify this implementation detail? >>>> Thanks >>>> Kolja >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Powered by www.kitware.com >>>> >>>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at >>>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html >>>> >>>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: >>>> http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView >>>> >>>> Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=ParaView >>>> >>>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: >>>> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=ParaView Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview
