I don't think this is right either. Excluding a device that doesn't exist has
many use cases. Such as disabling a network that only exists on part of the
cluster. I'm not sure about what to do with seq; it's more like include than
exclude.
Brian
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
-Origina
On Feb 1, 2013, at 7:09 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> I did not say we abort, I say we prevent BTL TCP from being used.
Ah.
> In your example, I guess the TCP is disabled but the PML finds another
> available interface and keeps going. If I try the same thing with
> "--mca btl tcp,self" it does a
I did not say we abort, I say we prevent BTL TCP from being used. In
your example, I guess the TCP is disabled but the PML finds another
available interface and keeps going. If I try the same thing with
"--mca btl tcp,self" it does abort on my cluster.
---
mpirun -np 2 --mca btl tcp,self --mca btl
On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:28 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> So far, all interfaces specified via MCA parameters for the BTL TCP
> are required to exist. Otherwise an error message is printed and an
> error returned to the upper level, with the intent that no BTLs of
> this type will be enabled (as an exa
Jeff,
So far, all interfaces specified via MCA parameters for the BTL TCP
are required to exist. Otherwise an error message is printed and an
error returned to the upper level, with the intent that no BTLs of
this type will be enabled (as an example btl_tcp_component.c:682).
If I correctly unders
+1.
Nathan and I have been talking about this for quite a while. Note that this is
the first of several updates that we will have for the MCA param system -- we
have a roadmap that can be easily described as two groups of things:
1. Changes that are intended for v1.7.x: everything to support M
