On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Scott Atchley wrote:
>
>> I posted a patch for this on the ticket.
>
> Will someone be committing this to SVN?
>
> I re-opened the ticket because just posting a patch to the ticket doesn't
gt; blockers.
>
> Have you been able to track these down any further, perchance?
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Scott Atchley wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Testing 1.5rc5 over MX with the same setup as 1.4.3rc1 (RHEL 5.4 and MX
>> 1.2.12).
>>
>
Hi all,
Testing 1.5rc5 over MX with the same setup as 1.4.3rc1 (RHEL 5.4 and MX 1.2.12).
This version also dies during init due to the memory manager if I do not
specify which pml to use. If I specify pml ob1 or pml cm, the tests start but
die with segfaults:
131072 320
Hi all,
I compiled 1.4.3rc1 with MX 1.2.12 on RHEL 5.4 (2.6.18-164.el5). It does not
like the memory manager and MX. Compiling using --without-memory-manager works
fine. The output below is form the default configure (i.e.
--with-memory-manager).
Note, I still see unusual latencies for some
On Oct 21, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
George Bosilca wrote:
On Oct 21, 2009, at 13:42 , Scott Atchley wrote:
On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:25 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
Because MX doesn't provide a real RMA protocol, we created a fake
one on top of point-to-point. The two peers have
On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:25 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
Brice,
Because MX doesn't provide a real RMA protocol, we created a fake
one on top of point-to-point. The two peers have to agree on a
unique tag, then the receiver posts it before the sender starts the
send. However, as this is
On Jan 22, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Bogdan Costescu wrote:
I'm still having some troubles using the newly released 1.3 with
Myricom's MX. I've meant to send a message earlier, but the release
candidates went so fast that I didn't have time to catch up and test.
General details:
Nodes with
On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Bogdan Costescu wrote:
I don't get to that point... I am not even able to use the wrapper
compilers (f.e. mpif90) to obtain an executable to run. The
segmentation fault happens when Open MPI utilities are being run, even
ompi_info.
Ahh, I thought you were getting
ks,
Scott
--
Scott Atchley
Myricom Inc.
http://www.myri.com
Terry,
Are you testing on Linux? If so, which kernel?
See the patch to iperf to handle kernel 2.6.21 and the issue that
they had with usleep(0):
http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf2.0/patch-iperf-linux-2.6.21.txt
Scott
On Aug 31, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Terry D. Dontje wrote:
Ok, I have an
10 matches
Mail list logo
