Okay, put back as r1846.
On 8/16/2011 1:23 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
We talked about this a lot today on the call (and then some more afterwards).
:-)
I think there's 2 important points here.
1. Ralph's original test was written with the intent of launching it with 1
process which would then d
We talked about this a lot today on the call (and then some more afterwards).
:-)
I think there's 2 important points here.
1. Ralph's original test was written with the intent of launching it with 1
process which would then do a series of local spawns. Even doing a huge
truckload of them, Ral
I don't really care, but note that loop_spawn was created by me to test a very
specific user-reported problem. It should "self-throttle" - i.e., the entire
idea is that comm_spawn "blocks" until the system has room for another process,
and then starts it. If that isn't working correctly, then OM
I think this is a good idea.
I have spent a fair amount of time in the past analyzing timeouts from this set
of tests. I had to figure out if it was an actual timeout or if the test was
just running very slowly.
In fact, I see that sometime in the past I throttled back the number of
iterations
