Just an update. Jeff and I have completed and checked in a fix to this
problem (see the trunk, r18873). Please note that this fix has only been
lightly tested, and we don't know for certain that it hasn't opened another
hole somewhere else in the dyke.
We would appreciate it if people could test t
Check that -- Ralph and I talked more about #1383 and have come up
with a decent/better solution that a) is not wonky and b) does not
involve MCA parameter synonyms. We're working on it in an hg and will
put it back when done (probably within a business day or three).
So I think the MCA sy
To drive Ralph's point home: the meeting is T-Th **NEXT WEEK**. We
have not yet setup any dialin capabilities, but can do so if people
are interested.
On Jul 10, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
I have update the agenda for the July meeting (again!) to reflect some
recent events. Le
I have update the agenda for the July meeting (again!) to reflect some
recent events. Let us know if you want to dial-in to any of these topics.
Ralph
[Finally] Fixed in https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/18873.
On Jul 10, 2008, at 11:29 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Ya, no worries -- we're working on a fix. We're just debating
exactly *how* to fix it. See https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/1135
if you want to keep up with th
K, will do. Note that it turns out that we did not yet solve the
mpi_paffinity_alone issue, but we're working on it. I'm working on
the IOF issue ATM; will return to mpi_paffinity_alone in a bit...
On Jul 10, 2008, at 1:56 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
I'm 100% with Brad on this. Please go ah
I'm 100% with Brad on this. Please go ahead and include this feature
in the 1.3.
george.
On Jul 10, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Brad Benton wrote:
I think this is very reasonable to go ahead and include for 1.3. I
find that preferable to a 1.3-specific "wonky" workaround. Plus,
this sounds lik
I think this is very reasonable to go ahead and include for 1.3. I find
that preferable to a 1.3-specific "wonky" workaround. Plus, this sounds
like something that is very good to have in general.
--brad
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> v1.3 RMs: Due to some recent work,
Ya, no worries -- we're working on a fix. We're just debating exactly
*how* to fix it. See https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/1135
if you want to keep up with the conversation.
On Jul 10, 2008, at 11:20 AM, Bogdan Costescu wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Ralph Castain wrote:
stdin is
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Ralph Castain wrote:
stdin is read twice if rank=0 shares the node with mpirun
I consider this to be a very serious regression. Many Fortran
scientific programs (at least many that I know) read their input from
stdin. This comes as a result of them being (or started to be
FYI the issue was resolved - https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/1376
Regards,
Pasha
Bogdan Costescu wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Pavel Shamis (Pasha) wrote:
I had similar issue recently. It will be nice to have option to
disable/enable *CM via config flags.
Not sure if this is related..
Can't argue with that...when Jeff gets back from his meeting he forgot
about, we'll chat and see what makes sense to recommend. The current code is
"worse" in the sense that we have this new bad behavior on stdin. It is
"better" in that Rolf and Jeff -did- plug a hole or two from the 1.2 days.
We'
This all seems like a 6 of one half dozen of the other decision. Both
solutions suck because there are holes. So, it comes down to whether we
think the current code is worse than 1.2 or not. If they are the same
I'd be inclined to stay with what we have now for fear of inadvertantly
borking
I believe the changes all pretty much related to an attempt to fix the
iof_flush problem and correction of a different problem affecting the
reading of stdin. Unfortunately, the iof_flush problem still remains, albeit
perhaps in different form, and we now have a new problem in the stdin
behavior.
I see that Jeff has updated the ticket saying that he is looking at the
code to see if he can generate a fix so the below may be superfluous.
Anyways, what were the issues fixed in 1.3? I really comes down to how
much more pain are we
giving our users by rolling back to 1.2 or not.
Note, I a
15 matches
Mail list logo
