On 8/24/07, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
> Hmm. If you compile Open MPI with no memory manager, then it
> *shouldn't* be Open MPI's fault (unless there's a leak in the mvapi
> BTL...?). Verify that you did not actually compile Open MPI with a
> memory manager by running "ompi_info| grep ptmalloc2" -- i
On Aug 24, 2007, at 4:18 PM, Josh Aune wrote:
We are using open-mpi on several 1000+ node clusters. We received
several new clusters using the Infiniserve 3.X software stack recently
and are having several problems with the vapi btl (yes, I know, it is
very very old and shouldn't be used. I co
We are using open-mpi on several 1000+ node clusters. We received
several new clusters using the Infiniserve 3.X software stack recently
and are having several problems with the vapi btl (yes, I know, it is
very very old and shouldn't be used. I couldn't agree with you more
but those are my march
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, George Bosilca wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Tim Prins wrote:
> > I do not understand why a user should have to use a RTE which supports
> > every system ever imagined, and provides every possible fault-tolerant
> > feature, when all they want is a thin RTE.
>
> We ha
Thanks to some great integration work from the Indiana University
sysadmin DongInn Kim, the Open MPI web site now features much better
web searching for all the Open MPI (and related) mailing lists.
If you visit any of the mailing list archive index pages (e.g.,
http://www.open-mpi.org/comm
FYI. The MTT database will be down for a few hours on Monday
morning. It'll be replaced with a much mo'better version -- [much]
faster than it was before. Details below.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Josh Hursey
Date: August 24, 2007 1:37:18 PM EDT
To: General user list for the MPI Te
On Aug 24, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Tim Prins wrote:
Again, my main concern is about fault tolerance. There is nothing in
PMI (and nothing in RSL so far) that allow any kind of fault
tolerance [And believe me re-writing the MPICH mpirun to allow
checkpoint/restart is a hassle].
I am open to any extens
On Aug 24, 2007, at 9:08 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
By heterogeneous RTE I was talking about what will happened once we
have the RSL. Different back-end will support different features, so
from the user perspective we will not provide a homogeneous execution
environment in all situations. On the
On Aug 24, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Terry D. Dontje wrote:
George Bosilca wrote:
Again, my main concern is about fault tolerance. There is nothing in
PMI (and nothing in RSL so far) that allow any kind of fault
tolerance [And believe me re-writing the MPICH mpirun to allow
checkpoint/restart is a ha
George Bosilca wrote:
Looks like I'm the only one barely excited about this idea. The
system that you described, is well known. It been around for around
10 years, and it's called PMI. The interface you have in the tmp
branch as well as the description you gave in your email are more
than
George Bosilca wrote:
Looks like I'm the only one barely excited about this idea. The
system that you described, is well known. It been around for around
10 years, and it's called PMI. The interface you have in the tmp
branch as well as the description you gave in your email are more
than
Looks like I'm the only one barely excited about this idea. The
system that you described, is well known. It been around for around
10 years, and it's called PMI. The interface you have in the tmp
branch as well as the description you gave in your email are more
than similar with what they
12 matches
Mail list logo
