-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/05/14 13:37, Moody, Adam T. wrote:
> Hi Chris,
Hi Adam,
> I'm interested in SLURM / OpenMPI startup numbers, but I haven't
> done this testing myself. We're stuck with an older version of
> SLURM for various internal reasons, and I'm wonderin
FWIW: we see varying reports about the scalability of Slurm, especially at
large cluster sizes. Last I saw/tested, there is a quadratic term that begins
to dominate above 2k nodes. Others swear it is better . Guess I'd be
cautious and definitely test things before investing in a move - I'm not
Hi Chris,
I'm interested in SLURM / OpenMPI startup numbers, but I haven't done this
testing myself. We're stuck with an older version of SLURM for various
internal reasons, and I'm wondering whether it's worth the effort to back port
the PMI2 support. Can you share some of the differences in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/05/14 12:53, Ralph Castain wrote:
> We have been seeing a lot of problems with the Slurm PMI-2 support
> (not in OMPI - it's the code in Slurm that is having problems). At
> this time, I'm unaware of any advantage in using PMI-2 over PMI-1
> i
We have been seeing a lot of problems with the Slurm PMI-2 support (not in OMPI
- it's the code in Slurm that is having problems). At this time, I'm unaware of
any advantage in using PMI-2 over PMI-1 in Slurm - the scaling is equally poor,
and PMI-2 does not supports any additional functionality
Any update on this? Can it be used in the RMA part?
George.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet
wrote:
> my bad :-(
>
> this has just been fixed
>
> Gilles
>
> On 2014/04/23 14:55, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>> The ompi_datatype_flatten.c file appears to be missing. Let me know once
I went over the provided trace file and I tried to force the BTLs to
handle extremely weird (and uncomfortable) lengths, on both Mac OS X
and Linux 64b. Despite all my efforts I was unable to reproduce this
error. So I'm giving up until more information become available.
George.
On Thu, Apr 17
Ok -- if is C99, then we're cool.
Thanks Larry.
On May 5, 2014, at 6:14 PM, Larry Baker wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> The stdint.h header is Section 7.18 Integer types in the C99
> standard (I can mail you a PDF copy if you like). It says
>
>> 7.18.1.1 Exact-width integer types
>>
>> 1The type
