George,
When asked about MTL versus BTL, we always suggest that users try both
with their application and determine which is best. I have had
customers report the BTL is better on Solaris (memory registration is
expensive and the BTL can overlap registration and communication when
it frag
Yep -- we discussed this after I committed that fix, and I read up on
the AC docs to see why it worked. I now grok, and have a pending fix
queued up for tonight (just so we don't commit autogen-worthy changes)
that fixes exactly what you're talking about. My patch is almost
exactly the sa
Hello,
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:38:29PM CEST:
> https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/21759 seems to make us
> play well with AC 2.64. To be honest, I'm not sure why this change
> works, but it does.
First off, the warnings 2.64 spit out were about real issues (that
Here is an alternative solution. If instead of setting a hard coded
value for the priority of CM, we make it use the priority of the MTL
that get selected, we can solve this problem on a case by case
approach by carefully setting the MTL's priority (bump up the portals
and PSM one and decre
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Rainer Keller wrote:
When compiling on systems with MX or Portals, we offer MTLs and BTLs.
If MTLs are used, the PML/CM is loaded as well as the PML/OB1.
Question 1: Is favoring OB1 over CM required for any MTL (MX, Portals, PSM)?
George has in the past had srtong feelin
Hello all,
as raised on todays telcon:
WHAT: Obeying or lowering default priority of PML/CM.
WHY: Not obvious why MTLs are not used for Portals/MX
WHEN: On trunk, Tuesday afternoon 18 Aug 2009
On 1.3 by CMR on 25 Aug 2009
TIMEOUT: Tuesday telconf, 18 Aug 2009
thanks a lot!
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Eugene Loh wrote:
> Mike Dubman wrote:
>
>
> Hello guys,
>
>
> When executing following command with mtt and ompi 1.3.3:
>
> mpirun --host
> witch15,witch15,witch15,witch15,witch16,witch16,witch16,witch16,witch17,witch17,witch17,witch17,witch18
Mike Dubman wrote:
Hello guys,
When executing following command with mtt and ompi 1.3.3:
mpirun --host witch15,witch15,witch15,witch15,witch16,witch16,witch16,witch16,witch17,witch17,witch17,witch17,witch18,witch18,witch18,witch18,witch19,witch19,witch19,witch19 -np 20 --mc
Hello guys,
When executing following command with mtt and ompi 1.3.3:
mpirun --host
witch15,witch15,witch15,witch15,witch16,witch16,witch16,witch16,witch17,witch17,witch17,witch17,witch18,witch18,witch18,witch18,witch19,witch19,witch19,witch19
-np 20 --mca btl_openib_use_srq 1 --mca btl self
On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Lenny Verkhovsky wrote:
I also have another question
$ompi_info -aa|grep mpool |grep sm
MCA coll: parameter "coll_sm_mpool" (current value: "sm", data
source: default value)
MCA mpool: parameter "mpool_sm_allocator" (current value:
"bucket", data source: def
On Aug 10, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Lenny Verkhovsky wrote:
Don't these allocations of bshe->smbhe_keys require some kind of
memory translation from 1 proc's memory space to another ( in
bootstrap_init function /ompi/mca/coll/sm/coll_sm_module.c )
If local rank0 allocates ( get attached to ) memor
11 matches
Mail list logo
