Code is in (see r23633). Note: mmap is still the default.
--
Samuel K. Gutierrez
Los Alamos National Laboratory
On Aug 12, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Samuel K. Gutierrez wrote:
Sorry, I should have included the link containing the discussion of
the plot.
http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/dev
Rainer Keller wrote:
Hi,
On Thursday 12 August 2010 19:09:42 Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Aug 12, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
Is there not a way to determine whether the fs is tmpfs or not?
I don't know -- Rainer?
Well, this is semi-portable ,-]
But sure, it would work
Hi,
On Thursday 12 August 2010 19:09:42 Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
> > Is there not a way to determine whether the fs is tmpfs or not?
> I don't know -- Rainer?
Well, this is semi-portable ,-]
But sure, it would work on Linux, where we'd want it:
./statf
Sorry, I should have included the link containing the discussion of
the plot.
http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2010/06/8078.php
--
Samuel K. Gutierrez
Los Alamos National Laboratory
On Aug 12, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
Sorry Rich, I didn't realize there was a graph
Sorry Rich, I didn't realize there was a graph attached at the end of
message. In other words my comments are not applicable because I really
didn't know you were asking about the graph. I agree it would be nice
to know what the graph was plotting.
--td
Terry Dontje wrote:
Graham, Richard L
On Aug 12, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
> Is there not a way to determine whether the fs is tmpfs or not?
I don't know -- Rainer?
> It seems fixing that is a lot less changes then adapting to Posix shared
> memory.
Keep in mind that the sm BTL itself did not change.
The parts th
Graham, Richard L. wrote:
Stupid question:
What is being plotted, and what are the units ?
Rich
MB of Resident and Shared memory as gotten from top (on linux). The
values for each of the processes run cases seem to be the same between
posix, mmap and sysv.
--td
On 8/11/10 3:15 PM, "
Stupid question:
What is being plotted, and what are the units ?
Rich
On 8/11/10 3:15 PM, "Samuel K. Gutierrez" wrote:
Hi Terry,
On Aug 11, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Terry Dontje wrote:
I've done some minor testing on Linux looking at resident and shared memory
sizes for np=4, 8 and
Will do.
--td
Samuel K. Gutierrez wrote:
Hi Terry,
One more thing... Before testing on Solaris 10, could you please
update (I just committed a Solaris 10 fix).
Thanks,
--
Samuel K. Gutierrez
Los Alamos National Laboratory
On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Samuel K. Gutierrez wrote:
Hi Terr
Samuel K. Gutierrez wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, the warning is only issued if the backing files
is stored on the following file systems: Lustre, NFS, Panasas, and
GPFS (see: opal_path_nfs in opal/util/path.c). Based on the
performance numbers that Sylvain provided on June 9th of this year
Hi Terry,
One more thing... Before testing on Solaris 10, could you please
update (I just committed a Solaris 10 fix).
Thanks,
--
Samuel K. Gutierrez
Los Alamos National Laboratory
On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Samuel K. Gutierrez wrote:
Hi Terry,
On Aug 11, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Ter
Hi Terry,
On Aug 11, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Terry Dontje wrote:
I've done some minor testing on Linux looking at resident and shared
memory sizes for np=4, 8 and 16 jobs. I could not see any
appreciable differences in sizes in the process between sysv, posix
or mmap usage in the SM btl
I've done some minor testing on Linux looking at resident and shared
memory sizes for np=4, 8 and 16 jobs. I could not see any appreciable
differences in sizes in the process between sysv, posix or mmap usage in
the SM btl.
So I am still somewhat non-plussed about making this the default. It
Hi Rich,
It's a modification to the existing common sm component. The
modifications do include the addition of a new POSIX shared memory
facility, however.
Sam
On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Graham, Richard L. wrote:
Is this a modification of the existing component, or a new component ?
Is this a modification of the existing component, or a new component ?
Rich
On 8/10/10 10:52 AM, "Samuel K. Gutierrez" wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to give everyone a heads-up about a new POSIX shared memory
component
that has been in the works for a while now and is ready to be pushed
into the
trunk.
Hi,
I wanted to give everyone a heads-up about a new POSIX shared memory
component
that has been in the works for a while now and is ready to be pushed
into the
trunk.
http://bitbucket.org/samuelkgutierrez/ompi_posix_sm_new
Some highlights:
o New posix component now the new default.
o May
16 matches
Mail list logo
