On Dec 18 2010, Ken Lloyd wrote:
Yes, this is a hard problem. It is not endemic to OpenMPI, however.
This hints at the distributed memory/process/thread issues either
through the various OSs or alternately external to them in many solution
spaces.
Absolutely. I hope that I never implied an
On Dec 18, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Ken Lloyd wrote:
> In other words, if we were to offer a true "flexible dynamic
> processing" (which I personally would advocate), would they (the
> developers and users) come?
This has pretty much been the problem: so far, they have not. :-\
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy.
Nick Maclaren,
Yes, this is a hard problem. It is not endemic to OpenMPI, however.
This hints at the distributed memory/process/thread issues either
through the various OSs or alternately external to them in many solution
spaces.
Jeff Squyers statement that "flexible dynamic processing is not
On Dec 17 2010, Jeff Squyres wrote:
It's not an unknown problem -- as George and Ralph were trying to say, it
was a design decision on our part.
Sadly, flexible dynamic processing is not something that many people ask
for. We have invested time in it over the year to get it working and have
On Dec 17, 2010, at 2:50 PM, Suraj Prabhakaran wrote:
> Yes, with MPI_Finalize() called before an abrupt exit() it is clean but
> talking generally about releasing connections, if Process A and Process B are
> connected through MPI_Comm_connect/accept and then made to
> MPI_Comm_disconnect at a
On 12/17/2010 06:24 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
Let me try to round the edges on this one. It is not that we couldn't or wouldn't like to have a more "MPI" compliant
approach on this, but the definition of connected processes in the MPI standard is [kind of] shady. One thing is clear however,
i
On Dec 17 2010, George Bosilca wrote:
Let me try to round the edges on this one. It is not that we couldn't or
wouldn't like to have a more "MPI" compliant approach on this, but the
definition of connected processes in the MPI standard is [kind of] shady.
One thing is clear however, it is a t
Let me try to round the edges on this one. It is not that we couldn't or
wouldn't like to have a more "MPI" compliant approach on this, but the
definition of connected processes in the MPI standard is [kind of] shady. One
thing is clear however, it is a transitive relationship. If A is "connecte
That is the expected behavior designed into Open MPI. If any process calls
MPI_Init and then terminates without calling MPI_Finalize, we flag that as an
abnormal termination and abort the entire job.
We don't provide any option for avoiding that behavior.
On Dec 17, 2010, at 5:13 AM, Suraj Prab
On Dec 17 2010, Suraj Prabhakaran wrote:
I am observing a behavior where when the parent spawns a child and when
the child terminates abruptly (for example with exit() before
MPI_Finalize() ), the parent also terminates even after both the child
and parent have explicitly called a MPI_disconn
Hello,
I am observing a behavior where when the parent spawns a child and when
the child terminates abruptly (for example with exit() before
MPI_Finalize() ), the parent also terminates even after both the child
and parent have explicitly called a MPI_disconnect. This turns out to be
a disadv
11 matches
Mail list logo
