I guess Platform MPI (which is a "merge" of Scali MPI & HP-MPI) will
get technologies from IBM MPI as well... or "merge" IBM's MPI into
Platform MPI (merge is around quotes because it is in general hard to
merge technologies - like I told a co-worker 10 years ago that one
can't just merge SGE with
We actually have a number of modules that are allowed to terminate daemons, so
it really isn't that big a deal. However, I can agree that this code is
unnecessary so long as any code that calls route_lost remembers to also check
for daemon termination conditions. I -think- that's the case today,
On Oct 11, 2011, at 1:40 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> Unfortunately, this issue appears as having been introduced by a certain
> change that was supposed to make the ORTE code more debugging-friendly
> [obviously]. That particular change duplicated the epoch-tainted error
> managers into their
Unfortunately, this issue appears as having been introduced by a certain change
that was supposed to make the ORTE code more debugging-friendly [obviously].
That particular change duplicated the epoch-tainted error managers into their
"default" version, more stable and also providing less featur
Hi,
I am presently using Intel's MPI benchmark (IMB) tool to test OFED Stack.
Is there any other MPI tool which runs on top of OpenMPI.
Thanks & Regards,
Ramu
Hi,
I am trying to run the example applications in OpenMPI using the command
"mpirun --prefix /usr/local/ --mca btl_openib_cpc_include rdmacm -np 4 -H
hello_c"
But I am getting the below warning
"WARNING: No preset parameters were found for the device that Open MPI
detected:"
Also at the end (j
The second part of this patch is fascinating. Why would a routed be allowed to
terminate a daemon? And why such discrimination (in the sense that they are not
allowed to shortcut to orte_quit) against all our routed ?
Thanks,
george.
Begin forwarded message:
> Modified: trunk/orte/mca/ro
On Oct 11, 2011, at 01:17 , Ralph Castain wrote:
>
> On Oct 10, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2011, at 11:14 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
>>
>>> Ralph,
>>>
>>> If you don't mind I would like to understand this issue a little bit more.
>>> What exactly is broken in
Good enough. Thanks!
On Oct 11, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Boehm, Swen wrote:
> I know for sure that it works with 2.5.35 but I am confident that it will
> work with 2.5.33.
> I committed the changes to trunk.
>
> -- Swen
>
> On Oct 6, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
>> I'm fine with bumping
I know for sure that it works with 2.5.35 but I am confident that it will work
with 2.5.33.
I committed the changes to trunk.
-- Swen
On Oct 6, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> I'm fine with bumping up the minimum version of flex required. I just want
> to have a clue what to bump it u
On Oct 10, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>
> On Oct 10, 2011, at 11:14 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
>> Ralph,
>>
>> If you don't mind I would like to understand this issue a little bit more.
>> What exactly is broken in the termination detection?
>>
>>> From a network point of view,
11 matches
Mail list logo
