On Aug 10, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Lenny Verkhovsky wrote:
Don't these allocations of bshe->smbhe_keys require some kind of
memory translation from 1 proc's memory space to another ( in
bootstrap_init function /ompi/mca/coll/sm/coll_sm_module.c )
If local rank0 allocates ( get attached to ) memor
On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Lenny Verkhovsky wrote:
I also have another question
$ompi_info -aa|grep mpool |grep sm
MCA coll: parameter "coll_sm_mpool" (current value: "sm", data
source: default value)
MCA mpool: parameter "mpool_sm_allocator" (current value:
"bucket", data source: def
Hello guys,
When executing following command with mtt and ompi 1.3.3:
mpirun --host
witch15,witch15,witch15,witch15,witch16,witch16,witch16,witch16,witch17,witch17,witch17,witch17,witch18,witch18,witch18,witch18,witch19,witch19,witch19,witch19
-np 20 --mca btl_openib_use_srq 1 --mca btl self
Mike Dubman wrote:
Hello guys,
When executing following command with mtt and ompi 1.3.3:
mpirun --host witch15,witch15,witch15,witch15,witch16,witch16,witch16,witch16,witch17,witch17,witch17,witch17,witch18,witch18,witch18,witch18,witch19,witch19,witch19,witch19 -np 20 --mc
thanks a lot!
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Eugene Loh wrote:
> Mike Dubman wrote:
>
>
> Hello guys,
>
>
> When executing following command with mtt and ompi 1.3.3:
>
> mpirun --host
> witch15,witch15,witch15,witch15,witch16,witch16,witch16,witch16,witch17,witch17,witch17,witch17,witch18
Hello all,
as raised on todays telcon:
WHAT: Obeying or lowering default priority of PML/CM.
WHY: Not obvious why MTLs are not used for Portals/MX
WHEN: On trunk, Tuesday afternoon 18 Aug 2009
On 1.3 by CMR on 25 Aug 2009
TIMEOUT: Tuesday telconf, 18 Aug 2009
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Rainer Keller wrote:
When compiling on systems with MX or Portals, we offer MTLs and BTLs.
If MTLs are used, the PML/CM is loaded as well as the PML/OB1.
Question 1: Is favoring OB1 over CM required for any MTL (MX, Portals, PSM)?
George has in the past had srtong feelin
Here is an alternative solution. If instead of setting a hard coded
value for the priority of CM, we make it use the priority of the MTL
that get selected, we can solve this problem on a case by case
approach by carefully setting the MTL's priority (bump up the portals
and PSM one and decre
Hello,
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:38:29PM CEST:
> https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/21759 seems to make us
> play well with AC 2.64. To be honest, I'm not sure why this change
> works, but it does.
First off, the warnings 2.64 spit out were about real issues (that
Yep -- we discussed this after I committed that fix, and I read up on
the AC docs to see why it worked. I now grok, and have a pending fix
queued up for tonight (just so we don't commit autogen-worthy changes)
that fixes exactly what you're talking about. My patch is almost
exactly the sa
George,
When asked about MTL versus BTL, we always suggest that users try both
with their application and determine which is best. I have had
customers report the BTL is better on Solaris (memory registration is
expensive and the BTL can overlap registration and communication when
it frag
11 matches
Mail list logo
