Understandable - and we can count on your patch in the near future, then? :-)
On Dec 15, 2009, at 9:12 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
> My 0.02USD says that for pragmatic reasons one should attempt to terminate
> the job in this case, regardless of ones opinion of this unusual application
> behavi
My 0.02USD says that for pragmatic reasons one should attempt to
terminate the job in this case, regardless of ones opinion of this
unusual application behavior.
-Paul
Ralph Castain wrote:
Hi folks
In case you didn't follow this on the user list, we had a question come up
about proper OMPI
Hi folks
In case you didn't follow this on the user list, we had a question come up
about proper OMPI behavior. Basically, the user has an application where one
process decides it should cleanly terminate prior to calling MPI_Init, but all
the others go ahead and enter MPI_Init. The application
On Dec 15, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>
>> It probably should be done at a lower level, but it begs a different
>> question. For example, I've created the capability in the new cluster
>> manager to detect interfaces that are lost
On Dec 15, 2009, at 8:56 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Hmm. I'm a little disappointed that this was applied without answering my
> questions first...
>
>http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2009/12/7187.php
WRONG. You *did* answer -- somehow my mail client ate it (I see the reply in
Hmm. I'm a little disappointed that this was applied without answering my
questions first...
http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2009/12/7187.php
Can you at least answer my questions after this fact?
On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:52 AM, wrote:
> Author: vasily
> Date: 2009-12-15 10:
On Dec 15, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> It probably should be done at a lower level, but it begs a different
> question. For example, I've created the capability in the new cluster
> manager to detect interfaces that are lost, ride through the problem by
> moving affected procs to
Awesome! Does this fix the xgrid support?
-jms
Sent from my PDA. No type good.
- Original Message -
From: svn-full-boun...@open-mpi.org
To: svn-f...@open-mpi.org
Sent: Tue Dec 15 19:06:37 2009
Subject: [OMPI svn-full] svn:open-mpi r22317
Author: bosilca
Date: 2009-12-15 19:06:37 EST
On Dec 15, 2009, at 7:41 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
> Kenneth Lloyd wrote:
>> My 2 cents: Carto is a weighted graph structure that describes the topology
>> of the compute cluster, not just locations of nodes. Many view topologies
>> (trees, meshes, torii) to be static - but I've found this an unnec
Kenneth Lloyd wrote:
My 2 cents: Carto is a weighted graph structure that describes the topology
of the compute cluster, not just locations of nodes. Many view topologies
(trees, meshes, torii) to be static - but I've found this an unnecessary and
undesirable constraint.
The compute fabric may b
My 2 cents: Carto is a weighted graph structure that describes the topology
of the compute cluster, not just locations of nodes. Many view topologies
(trees, meshes, torii) to be static - but I've found this an unnecessary and
undesirable constraint.
The compute fabric may better be left open to
11 matches
Mail list logo
