Compilation of OpenMPI 1.8.4 using Intel compiler version 14.0.4.211 results in
usable code but has the following "remarks":
thanks
tom
make[2]: Entering directory
`/home02/tom/src/openmpi-1.8.4_intel_1404211/ompi/mpi/fortran/use-mpi-f08'
PPFC mpi-f08-types.lo
GENERATE sizeof_f08.h
in the 1.8 ompi_info output.
Is there some reason you didn’t compile OMPI on the AMD machine? I ask because
there are some config switches in various areas that differ between AMD and
Intel architectures.
On Apr 17, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Tom Wurgler
mailto:twu...@goodyear.com>> wrote:
Note
Note where I said "1 hour 14 minutes" it should have read "1 hour 24 minutes"...
____________
From: Tom Wurgler
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 2:14 PM
To: Open MPI Developers
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Assigning processes to cores 1.4.2, 1.6.4 and 1.8.4
ll be placed on each
successive core. If you want to balance the load across the allocation (if the
#procs < #cores in allocation):
—map-by node —bind-to core
HTH
Ralph
On Apr 10, 2015, at 7:24 AM, Tom Wurgler
mailto:twu...@goodyear.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the responses.
The idea is
Thanks for the responses.
The idea is to bind one process per processor. The actual problem that
prompted the investigation is that a job
ran with 1.4.2 runs in 59 minutes and the same job in 1.6.4 and 1.8.4 takes 79
minutes on the same machine, same compiler etc. In trying to track down the
Note that rc2 had a bug in the out-of-band messaging system - might be what you
are hitting. I'd suggest working with rc4.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Tom Wurgler
mailto:twu...@goodyear.com>> wrote:
I have to take it back. While the first job was less than a node'
this is still rc2
More testing on-going
From: devel on behalf of Tom Wurgler
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:23 PM
To: Open MPI Developers
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] 1.8.4rc Status
It seems to be working in rc2 after all.
I was still trying to
ith it now.
Ralph
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Tom Wurgler
mailto:twu...@goodyear.com>> wrote:
Forgive me if I've missed it, but I believe using physical OR logical core
numbering was going to be
reimplemented in the 1.8.4 series.
I've checked out rc2 and as far as I can t
Forgive me if I've missed it, but I believe using physical OR logical core
numbering was going to be
reimplemented in the 1.8.4 series.
I've checked out rc2 and as far as I can tell, it isn't there as yet. Is this
correct?
thanks!
From: devel on behalf o
e, and the second set is just giving you a sequential core number.
On Nov 10, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Tom Wurgler
mailto:twu...@goodyear.com>> wrote:
On all but the 2 machines with the newer bios (just the first socket):
mach1:~ # lstopo -p --of console
NUMANode P#0 (12GB) + L3 (5118KB)
.
The problem is the core numbering, which is not unique for physical id’s. You
might compare your machines to mine using the same commands to see how it looks.
The BIOS can indeed change the numbering pattern, so that might indeed be an
issue.
On Nov 10, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Tom Wurgler
so they must have some way of translating them to provide a
unique number.
On Nov 10, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Tom Wurgler
mailto:twu...@goodyear.com>> wrote:
LSF gives this, for example, over which we (LSF users) have no control.
rank 0=mach1 slot=0
rank 1=mach1 slot=4
rank 2=mach1 slot=8
r
, specific and should not be called a solution. Running lstopo on the
whole cluster found 2 nodes giving logical numbering and the rest giving
physical.
Which is interesting in itself. We find those 2 nodes having a newer bios
level. Still investigating this...
thanks
tom
Tom Wurgler
t physical numbering, and so
you have to mentally translate to create the rankfile? Or is there an automated
script you run to do the translation?
In other words, is it possible to simplify the translation in the interim? Or
is this a show-stopper for you?
On Nov 6, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Tom Wurgler
, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Tom Wurgler
mailto:twu...@goodyear.com>> wrote:
Well, further investigation found this:
If I edit the rank file and change it like this:
before:
rank 0=mach1 slot=0
rank 1=mach1 slot=4
rank 2=mach1 slot=8
rank 3=mach1 slot=12
rank 4=mach1 slot=16
rank 5=mach1 slot=20
r
Well, further investigation found this:
If I edit the rank file and change it like this:
before:
rank 0=mach1 slot=0
rank 1=mach1 slot=4
rank 2=mach1 slot=8
rank 3=mach1 slot=12
rank 4=mach1 slot=16
rank 5=mach1 slot=20
rank 6=mach1 slot=24
rank 7=mach1 slot=28
rank 8=mach1 slot=32
rank 9=mach
16 matches
Mail list logo
