Scott Atchley wrote:
Terry,
Are you testing on Linux? If so, which kernel?
No, I am running into issues on Solaris but Ollie's run of the test code
on Linux seems to work fine.
--td
See the patch to iperf to handle kernel 2.6.21 and the issue that
they had with usleep(0):
http://das
Terry,
Are you testing on Linux? If so, which kernel?
See the patch to iperf to handle kernel 2.6.21 and the issue that
they had with usleep(0):
http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf2.0/patch-iperf-linux-2.6.21.txt
Scott
On Aug 31, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Terry D. Dontje wrote:
Ok, I have an up
Ok, I have an update to this issue. I believe there is an
implementation difference of sched_yield between Linux and Solaris. If
I change the sched_yield in opal_progress to be a usleep(500) then my
program completes quite quickly. I have sent a few questions to a
Solaris engineer and hopefu
Done. Public temp branches are now [strongly] encouraged to use /tmp-
public.
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/16030
On Aug 31, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Tim Prins wrote:
Jeff Squyres wrote:
That's fine, too. I don't really care -- /public already exists. We
can simply rename it t
Jeff Squyres wrote:
That's fine, too. I don't really care -- /public already exists. We
can simply rename it to /tmp-public.
Let's do that. It should (more or less) address all concerns that have
been voiced.
Tim
On Aug 31, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
Why not make /tmp-pu
That's fine, too. I don't really care -- /public already exists. We
can simply rename it to /tmp-public.
On Aug 31, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
Why not make /tmp-public and /tmp-private?
Leave /tmp alone. Have all new branches made in one of the two new
directories, and as /tmp
On 8/31/07 6:18 AM, "Jeff Squyres" wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Tim Prins wrote:
>
>> Why not make /tmp-public and /tmp-private?
>>
>> Leave /tmp alone. Have all new branches made in one of the two new
>> directories, and as /tmp branches are slowly whacked, we can
>> (eventually) g
On Aug 31, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Tim Prins wrote:
Why not make /tmp-public and /tmp-private?
Leave /tmp alone. Have all new branches made in one of the two new
directories, and as /tmp branches are slowly whacked, we can
(eventually) get rid of /tmp.
I'm fine with that. If no one else objects, l
Why not make /tmp-public and /tmp-private?
Leave /tmp alone. Have all new branches made in one of the two new
directories, and as /tmp branches are slowly whacked, we can
(eventually) get rid of /tmp.
Tim
Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
I thought about both of those (/tmp/private and /tmp/pub
