The Open MPI Team, representing a consortium of research, academic, and
industry partners, is pleased to announce the release of Open MPI version
1.4.2. This release is mainly a bug fix release over the v1.4.1 release. We
strongly recommend that all users upgrade to version 1.4.2 if possible.
On May 4 2010, Jeff Squyres wrote:
If there's a sleep(1) in the run-time test, that would be an annoying
source of delay in the startup of a job. This is not a deal-breaker, but
it would be nice(r) if there was a "fast" run-time check that could be
checked during the sysv selection logic (i.e.
On 4 May 2010, at 15:41, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On May 4, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Ashley Pittman wrote:
>
>>> One thing to be careful with a run-time check is that you might not want
>>> *all* processes on a box to try to alloc a sysv segment, fork a child, try
>>> to connect, ...etc. With large cou
On May 4, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Ashley Pittman wrote:
> > One thing to be careful with a run-time check is that you might not want
> > *all* processes on a box to try to alloc a sysv segment, fork a child, try
> > to connect, ...etc. With large count boxen, you might run out of sysv
> > shmem segm
On 4 May 2010, at 15:27, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> One thing to be careful with a run-time check is that you might not want
> *all* processes on a box to try to alloc a sysv segment, fork a child, try to
> connect, ...etc. With large count boxen, you might run out of sysv shmem
> segments if all p
If there's a sleep(1) in the run-time test, that would be an annoying source of
delay in the startup of a job. This is not a deal-breaker, but it would be
nice(r) if there was a "fast" run-time check that could be checked during the
sysv selection logic (i.e., sysv could disqualify itself if the
On May 4 2010, Terry Dontje wrote:
Ralph Castain wrote:
Is a configure-time test good enough? For example, are all Linuxes
the same in this regard. That is if you built OMPI on RH and it
configured in the new SysV SM will those bits actually run on other
Linux systems correctly? I think J
On May 4, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
> Ralph Castain wrote:
>>
>>
>> On May 4, 2010, at 3:45 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
>>
>>> Is a configure-time test good enough? For example, are all Linuxes the
>>> same in this regard. That is if you built OMPI on RH and it configured in
>>> th
Ralph Castain wrote:
On May 4, 2010, at 3:45 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
Is a configure-time test good enough? For example, are all Linuxes
the same in this regard. That is if you built OMPI on RH and it
configured in the new SysV SM will those bits actually run on other
Linux systems correctl
On May 4, 2010, at 3:45 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
> Is a configure-time test good enough? For example, are all Linuxes the same
> in this regard. That is if you built OMPI on RH and it configured in the new
> SysV SM will those bits actually run on other Linux systems correctly? I
> think Jef
On May 4 2010, Terry Dontje wrote:
Is a configure-time test good enough? For example, are all Linuxes the
same in this regard. That is if you built OMPI on RH and it configured
in the new SysV SM will those bits actually run on other Linux systems
correctly? I think Jeff had hinted to this
Is a configure-time test good enough? For example, are all Linuxes the
same in this regard. That is if you built OMPI on RH and it configured
in the new SysV SM will those bits actually run on other Linux systems
correctly? I think Jeff had hinted to this similarly when suggesting
this may n
12 matches
Mail list logo
