On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 02:27:34PM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> >>
> >>Btw, did you compare my patch with yours on your multi-NIC system ?
> >>With my patch on our system with 3 networks (2*1Gbs and one 100 Mbs)
> >>I'm close to 99% of the
On Jun 27, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Btw, did you compare my patch with yours on your multi-NIC system ?
With my patch on our system with 3 networks (2*1Gbs and one 100 Mbs)
I'm close to 99% of the total bandwidth. I'll try to see what I get
with yours.
Your patch SEGV on my setu
Cool this sounds good enough to me.
--td
Brian Barrett wrote:
THe function name changes are pretty obvious (s/mca_pml_base/ompi/),
and I thought I'd try something new and actually document the
interface in the header file :). So we should be good on that front.
Brian
On Jun 27, 2007, at
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 05:42:05PM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
> Gleb,
>
> Simplifying the code and getting better performance is always a good
> approach (at least from my perspective). However, your patch still
> dispatch the messages over the BTLs in a round robin fashion, which
> doesn'
THe function name changes are pretty obvious (s/mca_pml_base/ompi/),
and I thought I'd try something new and actually document the
interface in the header file :). So we should be good on that front.
Brian
On Jun 27, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Terry D. Dontje wrote:
I am ok with the following as l
I am ok with the following as long as we can have some sort of
documenation describing what changed like which old functions
are replaced with newer functions and any description of changed
assumptions.
--td
Brian Barrett wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, at 6:08 PM, Tim Prins wrote:
Some time ago yo
Hi,
I assume you mean something like mca_coll_foo_init_query() for your
initialization function. And I'm guessing you're exchanging some sort
of address information for your network here?
correct.
What I actually did in my collective component was use PML's modex
(module exchange) facili
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 05:42:05PM -0400, George Bosilca wrote:
> Gleb,
>
> Simplifying the code and getting better performance is always a good
> approach (at least from my perspective). However, your patch still
> dispatch the messages over the BTLs in a round robin fashion, which
> doesn'
