On Sunday 24 July 2011 20:50:14 Eduardo Morras wrote:
> At 01:15 08/07/2011, you wrote:
> >On Jul 7, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> > > This is quibbling. On heavy loads on networ, disk et cetera,
> >
> > isn't there always and also a CPU bound load?
> >
> >No. Properly written software b
At 01:15 08/07/2011, you wrote:
On Jul 7, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> This is quibbling. On heavy loads on networ, disk et cetera,
isn't there always and also a CPU bound load?
No. Properly written software blocks when waiting on network or
disk I/O, and doesn't sit there spinnin
On Jul 7, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> This is quibbling. On heavy loads on networ, disk et cetera, isn't there
> always and also a CPU bound load?
No. Properly written software blocks when waiting on network or disk I/O, and
doesn't sit there spinning in a busy-wait consuming CPU un
On 07/07/11 09:27, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 06/07/2011 21:11 Nathan Whitehorn said the following:
On 07/06/11 13:00, Steve Kargl wrote:
AFAICT, it is a cpu affinity issue. If I launch n+1 MPI images
on a system with n cpus/cores, then 2 (and sometimes 3) images
are stuck on a cpu and those 2 (or
On 07/07/11 09:04, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 07/07/2011 06:11 Steve Kargl said the following:
Unfortunately, I have neither the brain capacity and time nor
the money to fix the issue. To solve OP's problem in the
short, the simplest solution may be to switch to 4BSD. Let's
face, ULE is not a silv
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Hartmann, O.
wrote:
> On 07/07/11 06:29, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Hartmann, O.
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/06/11 21:36, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 03:18:35PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
>>>
On 07/07/11 06:29, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Hartmann, O.
wrote:
On 07/06/11 21:36, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 03:18:35PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 05:29:
