Re: [OMPI users] round-robin scheduling question [hostfile]

2009-02-23 Thread Raymond Wan


Hi Ralph,


Ralph Castain wrote:
...
The man page will describe all the various options. Which one is best 
for your app really depends on what the app is doing, the capabilities 
and topology of your cluster, etc. A little experimentation can help you 
get a feel for when to use which one.



Thank you for the explanation!  So far, I've only been using -np and letting the rest work itself through magic :-) --  but, I'll try the options you suggested and also other options in the man page of mpirun to see what works for my application...  


Thanks again!

Ray



Re: [OMPI users] round-robin scheduling question [hostfile]

2009-02-20 Thread Ralph Castain

It is a little bit of both:

* historical, because most MPI's default to mapping by slot, and

* performance, because procs that share a node can communicate via  
shared memory, which is faster than sending messages over an  
interconnect, and most apps are communication-bound


If your app is disk-intensive, then mapping it -bynode may be a better  
option for you. That's why we provide it. Note, however, that you can  
still wind up with multiple procs on a node. All "bynode" means is  
that the ranks are numbered consecutively bynode - it doesn't mean  
that there is only one proc/node.


If you truly want one proc/node, then you should use the -pernode  
option. This maps one proc on each node up to either the number of  
procs you specified or the number of available nodes. If you don't  
specify -np, we just put one proc on each node in your allocation/ 
hostfile.


HTH
Ralph

On Feb 20, 2009, at 1:25 AM, Raymond Wan wrote:



Hi all,

According to FAQ 14 (How do I control how my processes are scheduled  
across nodes?) [http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=running#mpirun-scheduling 
], it says that the default scheduling policy is by slot and not by  
node.  I'm curious why the default is "by slot" since I am thinking  
of explicitly specifying by node but I'm wondering if there is an  
issue which I haven't considered.
I would think that one reason for "by node" is to distribute HDD  
access across machines [as is the case for me since my program is  
HDD access intensive].  Or perhaps I am mistaken?  I'm now thinking  
that "by slot" is the default because processes with ranks that are  
close together might do similar tasks and you would want them on the  
same node?  Is that the reason?


Also, at the end of this FAQ, it says "NOTE:  This is the scheduling  
policy in Open MPI because of a long historical precendent..." --   
does this "This" refer to "the fact that there are two scheduling  
policies" or "the fact that 'by slot' is the default"?  If the  
latter, then that explains why "by slot" is the default, I guess...


Thank you!

Ray



___
users mailing list
us...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users