Dear Rainer,
Thanks for your (and George's) very quick answer and the fast solution!
The patch works great.
Best regards
Daniel Spångberg
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:38:26 +0200, Rainer Keller wrote:
Dear Daniel,
well, this definitly would be an issue for the us...@open-mpi.org list.
Your rep
Hello everyone,
I encountered a problem with openib on depend connection code. Basically
it works only by pure luck if you have more then one endpoint for the same
proc and sometimes breaks in mysterious ways.
The algo works like this: A wants to connect to B so it creates QP and sends it
to B.
Hey Gleb --
Can you explain the rationale for this change? Is there a reason why
the bandwidths reported by the IBV API are not sufficient? Are you
trying to do creative things with multi-LID scenarios (perhaps QOS-
like things)? If so, this looks like a good idea, but I'm not sure
that
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 11:03:09AM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Hey Gleb --
>
> Can you explain the rationale for this change? Is there a reason why
> the bandwidths reported by the IBV API are not sufficient? Are you
> trying to do creative things with multi-LID scenarios (perhaps QOS-
> l
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Gleb Natapov wrote:
I'm not particularly fond of creating variable MCA parameters after
the btl open call because they won't show up in ompi_info. Should we
do something else if you want to override bandwidths, perhaps
something similar to the HCA params file? If you recal
Hi Gleb,
As we have discussed before I am working on adding support for
multiple QPs with either per peer resources or shared resources.
As a result of this I am trying to clean up a lot of the OpenIB code.
It has grown up organically over the years and needs some attention.
Perhaps we can co
Hi Galen,Gleb,
there is also something weird going on if I call the basic alltoall
during the module_init() of a collective module (I need to wire up my
own QPs in my coll component). It takes 7 seconds for 4 nodes and more
than 30 minutes for 120 nodes. It seems to be an OpenIB wireup issue
becaus
On Jun 13, 2007, at 11:32 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
Right ... blame me :) The problem is that we have to know the
number of
interfaces in order to be able to generate the MCA parameters, and the
number of interfaces will only be know inside the init call (and I
really
doon't think it's a goo
On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:
Hi Galen,Gleb,
there is also something weird going on if I call the basic alltoall
during the module_init() of a collective module (I need to wire up my
own QPs in my coll component). It takes 7 seconds for 4 nodes and more
than 30 minutes for
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Jeff Squyres wrote:
I don't mind having some MCA parameters that are never showed by
ompi_info
(we already have the hidden ones). Anyway, for TCP by default there
is the
btl_tcp_latency and btl_tcp_bandwidth which will be used as a default
value for all NICs. For the others,
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:38:21AM -0600, Galen Shipman wrote:
> Hi Gleb,
>
> As we have discussed before I am working on adding support for
> multiple QPs with either per peer resources or shared resources.
> As a result of this I am trying to clean up a lot of the OpenIB code.
> It has grown
On Jun 13, 2007, at 12:03 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
I think the "hidden" MCA parameters are a different issue; they were
created for a different purpose (users are not supposed to see/set
them). These variable parameters would be intended to be used by the
users, but they would have no way of f
On Jun 13, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
I am not committing this yet. I want people to review my logic and the
patch. If the change is OK with everyone how cares then I want this
change to go into 1.2 branch.
I don't care how this change will get to the trunk. I can use patched
versio
I wonder if this is bringing up the point that there are several of
us working in the openib code base -- I wonder if it would be
worthwhile to have a [short] teleconference to discuss what we're all
doing in openib, where we're doing it (trunk, branch, whatever), when
we expect to have it
On Jun 13, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
I wonder if this is bringing up the point that there are several of
us working in the openib code base -- I wonder if it would be
worthwhile to have a [short] teleconference to discuss what we're all
doing in openib, where we're doing it (trunk,
I was just bitten yesterday by a problem that I've known about for a
while but had never gotten around to looking into (I could have sworn
that there was an open trac ticket on this, but I can't find one
anywhere).
I have 2 hosts: one with 3 active ports and one with 2 active ports.
If I run an
On Jun 13, 2007, at 11:15 AM, Nysal Jan wrote:
I was just bitten yesterday by a problem that I've known about for a
while but had never gotten around to looking into (I could have sworn
that there was an open trac ticket on this, but I can't find one
anywhere).
I have 2 hosts: one with 3 act
On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Nysal Jan wrote:
There is a ticket (closed) here: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/
ticket/548
It was fixed by Galen for 1.2.
Ah -- I forgot to look at closed tickets. I think we broke it again;
it certainly fails on the trunk (perhaps related to what Gleb
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 12:45:01PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > I am not committing this yet. I want people to review my logic and the
> > patch. If the change is OK with everyone how cares then I want this
> > change to go into 1.2 branch.
>
On Jun 13, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Nysal Jan wrote:
There is a ticket (closed) here: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/
ticket/548
It was fixed by Galen for 1.2.
Ah -- I forgot to look at closed tickets. I think we broke it again;
it certainly f
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 10:52:53AM -0600, Galen Shipman wrote:
>
> On Jun 13, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
> > I wonder if this is bringing up the point that there are several of
> > us working in the openib code base -- I wonder if it would be
> > worthwhile to have a [short] telecon
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 12:35:55PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, at 12:03 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> >> I think the "hidden" MCA parameters are a different issue; they were
> >> created for a different purpose (users are not supposed to see/set
> >> them). These variable parame
On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
I have 2 hosts: one with 3 active ports and one with 2 active ports.
If I run an MPI job between them, the openib BTL wireup got badly and
it aborts. So handling a heterogeneous number of ports is not
currently handled properly in the code.
Are
On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
With today's trunk, I still see the problem:
Same thing happens on v1.2 branch. I'll re-open #548.
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 02:05:00PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
> > With today's trunk, I still see the problem:
>
> Same thing happens on v1.2 branch. I'll re-open #548.
>
I am sure it was never tested with multiple subnets. I'll try to get
su
On Jun 13, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 02:05:00PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
With today's trunk, I still see the problem:
Same thing happens on v1.2 branch. I'll re-open #548.
I am sure it was never test
On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
[snip]
coordination kind of teleconference. If people think this is a good
idea, I can setup the call.
sounds good to me.
Sounds good to me to. Pasha also works on async event thread. This
patch
is not something I planned to work on. This pr
On Jun 13, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
[snip]
coordination kind of teleconference. If people think this is a
good
idea, I can setup the call.
sounds good to me.
Sounds good to me to. Pasha also works on async event thread. Thi
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 02:23:37PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> >>> [snip]
> >>> coordination kind of teleconference. If people think this is a good
> >>> idea, I can setup the call.
> >>
> >> sounds good to me.
> > Sounds good to me to. Pasha
On Jun 13, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Pasha tells me that the best times for Ishai and him are:
- 2000-2030 Israel time
- 1300-1300 US Eastern
- 1100-1130 US Mountain
- 2230-2300 India (Bangalore)
Although they could also do the preceding half hour as well.
Depends on the date. Th
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 02:48:02PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> >> Pasha tells me that the best times for Ishai and him are:
> >>
> >> - 2000-2030 Israel time
> >> - 1300-1300 US Eastern
> >> - 1100-1130 US Mountain
> >> - 2230-2300 India (Banga
On Jun 13, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 02:48:02PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Pasha tells me that the best times for Ishai and him are:
- 2000-2030 Israel time
- 1300-1300 US Eastern
- 1100-1130 US Mountain
-
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Pasha tells me that the best times for Ishai and him are:
- 2000-2030 Israel time
- 1300-1300 US Eastern
- 1100-1130 US Mountain
- 2230-2300 India (Bangalore)
Although they could also do the preceding half hour as well.
I'd like to call in as some of this applies to UD as well, is that okay?
Andrew
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Pasha tells me that the best times for Ishai and him are:
- 2000-2030 Israel time
- 1300-1300 US Eastern
- 1100-1130 US Mountain
- 2230-2300 In
On Jun 13, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Andrew Friedley wrote:
I'd like to call in as some of this applies to UD as well, is that
okay?
Sounds good.
Andrew
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Pasha tells me that the best times for Ishai and him are:
- 2000-2030 Is
I will probably join the call as well.
Regards,
Gil Bloch
> -Original Message-
> From: devel-boun...@open-mpi.org [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On
> Behalf Of Pavel Shamis (Pasha)
> Sent: ד 13 יוני 2007 12:15
> To: Open MPI Developers
> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] openib coord teleco
Gleb's post earlier today inspired me to [finally] work on the
modularizing the openib btl connection semantics. We need this to
add the RDMA CM support anyway, and it seemed like a natural time to
actually start something on it. I used Gleb's patch as a starting
point.
The idea is to s
On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
3. Use a file to convey this information, because it's better suited
to what we're trying to do (vs. MCA parameters).
Seriously, why is a file a bad thing? The file can list interfaces
by hostname. For example, if you have a heterogeneous setup
On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:43 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
More specifically, I'm proposing two things:
1. The MCA system itself accept this ini-style file that keys off
hostnames so that this works across all of Open MPI.
2. The bandwidth/latency MCA params accept values in two forms:
- a single in
Jeff Squyres wrote:
Let's take a step back and see exactly what we *want*. Then we can
talk about how to have an interface for it.
I must be missing something but why is the bandwidth/latency passed by
the user (by whatever means) ? Would it be easier to automagically get
these values by pr
40 matches
Mail list logo
