hey Ralph,
At UBC, we are trying to find a new student who can maintain the SCTP
BTL. Unfortunately, it is has not been maintained since the progress
engine overhaul a while ago. At the moment, this is still on the TODO
list. I hope to get to this myself, if no student is found.
It was my impr
Greetings,
In the current ompi-trunk (r19808), my build was breaking. I have
created a small patch to fix this, but I wanted to ask the team about
something first. One of the problems was with snprintf. I read a
little bit more about this and I found this quote about snprintf:
"snprintf does n
ned(__FreeBSD__)
+|| 1
+#endif
+ )
return (NULL);
if (!(kqueueop = calloc(1, sizeof(struct kqop
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Brad Penoff wrote:
> I believe Karol's patch in the original mail in this thread adds the
> appropriate headers for open
et you know.
Thanks,
brad
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> George -- did you get to make this fix?
>
> What header file is openpty declared in on FreeBSD 7? It should be
> easy enough to add the right #include to that file.
>
>
>
> On Apr 29, 200
ith kevent running locally. I tried also running
on a remote machine, and it hung in the same way. George mentioned he
had done a fix for an OS X issue recently just curious but did you
guys (or anyone else) ever get a chance to cycle back to this?
Thanks!
brad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 4:45 PM, B
hey all,
I was just configuring MTT to run some multihost tests on FreeBSD 7
and I came across this same error you guys were, using the
openmpi-1.3a1r18325.tar.gz trunk nightly tarball :
kqueue.c:165: error: implicit declaration of function 'openpty'
However, this error seems to only come up if
hey all,
I was just configuring MTT to run some multihost tests on FreeBSD 7
and I came across this same error you guys were, using the
openmpi-1.3a1r18325.tar.gz trunk nightly tarball :
kqueue.c:165: error: implicit declaration of function 'openpty'
However, this error seems to only come up if
Greetings,
In an MTT run just now, I'm noticing these funny output messages in
the middle of an early phase:
>> MPI install [mpi install: gcc warnings]
Installing MPI: [ompi-nightly-trunk] / [1.3a1r17921] / [gcc warnings]...
[pc23.netbed.icics.ubc.ca:59263] mca: base: components_open: compon
On Nov 14, 2007 10:17 AM, Brad Penoff wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2007 5:11 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
> >
> > Brad Penoff wrote:
> > > On Nov 12, 2007 3:26 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have no objections to bringing this into the trunk, but I
On Dec 12, 2007 6:03 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 8:58 PM, Brad Penoff wrote:
>
> >> That's not really the issue: I don't *want* SCTP support. :)
> >>
> >> I have a default RHEL4U4 install and now Open MPI is complaining on a
> >&
On Dec 12, 2007 5:44 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Brad Penoff wrote:
>
> > Does your system have sctp in the kernel as a module? This is the
> > default for most Linux systems so you may have to "modprobe sctp" to
> > get rid of the
hey Jeff,
Does your system have sctp in the kernel as a module? This is the
default for most Linux systems so you may have to "modprobe sctp" to
get rid of the ESOCKTNOSUPPORT...
brad
On Dec 12, 2007 3:57 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> After the exclusivity change today, I notice that I am getting
The change is in:
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/16764
Thanks for the heads-up,
brad
On Nov 20, 2007 9:48 AM, Brad Penoff wrote:
> Sorry, saw this thread late. We'll try to make the change later today
> after a few meetings!
>
> brad
>
>
>
> On Nov 1
re sense to be pessimistic and assume that a given
platform will not work. It will make maintaining the BTL easier as
well ;-)
Just my $.02...
brad
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Brad Penoff wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 2007 5:11 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
> >>
> >
Sorry, saw this thread late. We'll try to make the change later today
after a few meetings!
brad
On Nov 14, 2007 8:16 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
>
>
>
> Tim - excellent catch!
>
> I totally agree. We must be very mindful of IP-related issues.
>
> -jms
> Sent from my PDA
>
>
> ---
On Nov 14, 2007 5:11 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
>
> Brad Penoff wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 2007 3:26 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> >
> >> I have no objections to bringing this into the trunk, but I agree that
> >> an .ompi_ignore is probably a good idea at first.
>
On Nov 13, 2007 12:41 PM, Brad Penoff wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 3:26 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > I have no objections to bringing this into the trunk, but I agree that
> > an .ompi_ignore is probably a good idea at first.
>
> I'll try to cook up a commit soon then!
#x27;ve only started playing with MTT so I'm sure we'll have plenty of
questions as we begin this process!
> More below.
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2007, at 9:25 PM, Brad Penoff wrote:
>
> >>> Currently, both the one-to-one and the one-to-many make use of the
>
On Nov 10, 2007 9:42 AM, Andrew Friedley wrote:
> Brad Penoff wrote:
> > Any objections to us committing an SCTP BTL to ompi-trunk if it has
> > the ompi_ignore file in it first?
>
> I'd like to see this in the trunk, though I'd guess that others will
> wa
Greetings Open MPI developers,
Karol Mroz and I at UBC have been working on a BTL component for SCTP.
With our own internal testing, the BTL has stabilized so we were
hoping to commit it to ompi-trunk. Prior to doing so though, we
wanted get some feedback from the community. Particularly we wer
Greetings,
We had some questions about the best way to make use of Open MPI's
features for a new BTL... the general theme is making use of the
opal_event's versus a btl_progress function. When is it best to do
one versus the other?
We are working on several designs for an SCTP BTL for Open MPI.
hey,
I just had a question (and potential bug) about the expected behavior in
mpirun... I saw it in 1.1.5 and just saw that it still occurs in 1.2.
I'll illustrate with a (seemingly) silly example.
Say in your $HOME you have a sh script named testecho that just has
echo "Saying hi"
...as i
middleware in
the first place; time will tell!
Thanks again for all your answers,
brad
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Galen M. Shipman wrote:
On Aug 31, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Aug 29, 2005, at 9:17 PM, Brad Penoff wrote:
PML: Pretty much the same as it was described in the pape
Greetings,
Thanks for the clarity. I just had a few quick follow-up questions,
inline below.
brad
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Particularly, I'm just curious about the difference between pml-bml-btl
and the old pml-ptl (as described in your TEG paper) and why changes
were made.
Greetings,
I was just curious about the distinction between the pml, bml, and btl
layers within OpenMPI and was wondering if there was any place (other than
the code ;-) where I could read about the design decisions. Any pointers?
Particularly, I'm just curious about the difference between p
25 matches
Mail list logo
