sure. I took a guess at ppn and nodes for the case where 2 processes
are on the same node... I dont claim these are the right values ;-)
c0301b10e1 ~/mpi> env|grep OMPI
OMPI_MCA_orte_nodes=c0301b10e1
OMPI_MCA_orte_rank=0
OMPI_MCA_orte_ppn=2
OMPI_MCA_orte_num_procs=2
OMPI_MCA_oob_tcp_static_ports_v6=10000-11000
OMPI_MCA_ess=generic
OMPI_MCA_orte_jobid=9999
OMPI_MCA_oob_tcp_static_ports=10000-11000
c0301b10e1 ~/hpa/benchmark/mpi> ./ben1 1 1 1
[c0301b10e1:22827] [[0,9999],0] assigned port 10001
[c0301b10e1:22827] [[0,9999],0] accepting connections via event library
minsize=1 maxsize=1 delay=1.000000
<no more output after that>
c0301b10e1 ~/mpi> env|grep OMPI
OMPI_MCA_orte_nodes=c0301b10e1
OMPI_MCA_orte_rank=1
OMPI_MCA_orte_ppn=2
OMPI_MCA_orte_num_procs=2
OMPI_MCA_oob_tcp_static_ports_v6=10000-11000
OMPI_MCA_ess=generic
OMPI_MCA_orte_jobid=9999
OMPI_MCA_oob_tcp_static_ports=10000-11000
c0301b10e1 ~/hpa/benchmark/mpi> ./ben1 1 1 1
[c0301b10e1:22830] [[0,9999],1] assigned port 10002
[c0301b10e1:22830] [[0,9999],1] accepting connections via event library
[c0301b10e1:22830] [[0,9999],1]-[[0,0],0] mca_oob_tcp_send_nb: tag 15 size 189
[c0301b10e1:22830] [[0,9999],1]-[[0,0],0]
mca_oob_tcp_peer_try_connect: connecting port 10002 to:
10.4.72.110:10000
[c0301b10e1:22830] [[0,9999],1]-[[0,0],0]
mca_oob_tcp_peer_complete_connect: connection failed: Connection
refused (111) - retrying
[c0301b10e1:22830] [[0,9999],1]-[[0,0],0]
mca_oob_tcp_peer_try_connect: connecting port 10002 to:
10.4.72.110:10000
[c0301b10e1:22830] [[0,9999],1]-[[0,0],0]
mca_oob_tcp_peer_complete_connect: connection failed: Connection
refused (111) - retrying
[c0301b10e1:22830] [[0,9999],1]-[[0,0],0]
mca_oob_tcp_peer_try_connect: connecting port 10002 to:
10.4.72.110:10000
[c0301b10e1:22830] [[0,9999],1]-[[0,0],0]
mca_oob_tcp_peer_complete_connect: connection failed: Connection
refused (111) - retrying
<repeats..>
Thanks!
p.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote:
> Can you send me the values you are using for the relevant envars? That way I
> can try to replicate here
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Philippe wrote:
>
>> I took a look at the code but I'm afraid I dont see anything wrong.
>>
>> p.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote:
>>> Yes, that is correct - we reserve the first port in the range for a daemon,
>>> should one exist.
>>> The problem is clearly that get_node_rank is returning the wrong value for
>>> the second process (your rank=1). If you want to dig deeper, look at the
>>> orte/mca/ess/generic code where it generates the nidmap and pidmap. There is
>>> a bug down there somewhere that gives the wrong answer when ppn > 1.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Philippe <phil...@mytoaster.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ralph,
>>>>
>>>> somewhere in ./orte/mca/oob/tcp/oob_tcp.c, there is this comment:
>>>>
>>>> orte_node_rank_t nrank;
>>>> /* do I know my node_local_rank yet? */
>>>> if (ORTE_NODE_RANK_INVALID != (nrank =
>>>> orte_ess.get_node_rank(ORTE_PROC_MY_NAME)) &&
>>>> (nrank+1) <
>>>> opal_argv_count(mca_oob_tcp_component.tcp4_static_ports)) {
>>>> /* any daemon takes the first entry, so we start
>>>> with the second */
>>>>
>>>> which seems constant with process #0 listening on 10001. the question
>>>> would be why process #1 attempt to connect to port 10000 then? or
>>>> maybe totally unrelated :-)
>>>>
>>>> btw, if I trick process #1 to open the connection to 10001 by shifting
>>>> the range, I now get this error and the process terminate immediately:
>>>>
>>>> [c0301b10e1:03919] [[0,9999],1]-[[0,0],0]
>>>> mca_oob_tcp_peer_recv_connect_ack: received unexpected process
>>>> identifier [[0,9999],0]
>>>>
>>>> good luck with the surgery and wishing you a prompt recovery!
>>>>
>>>> p.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote:
>>>>> Something doesn't look right - here is what the algo attempts to do:
>>>>> given a port range of 10000-12000, the lowest rank'd process on the node
>>>>> should open port 10000. The next lowest rank on the node will open
>>>>> 10001,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>> So it looks to me like there is some confusion in the local rank algo.
>>>>> I'll
>>>>> have to look at the generic module - must be a bug in it somewhere.
>>>>> This might take a couple of days as I have surgery tomorrow morning, so
>>>>> please forgive the delay.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Philippe <phil...@mytoaster.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm able to use the generic module when the processes are on different
>>>>>> machines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what would be the values of the EV when two processes are on the same
>>>>>> machine (hopefully talking over SHM).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i've played with combination of nodelist and ppn but no luck. I get
>>>>>> errors
>>>>>> like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [c0301b10e1:03172] [[0,9999],1] -> [[0,0],0] (node: c0301b10e1)
>>>>>> oob-tcp: Number of attempts to create TCP connection has been
>>>>>> exceeded. Can not communicate with peer
>>>>>> [c0301b10e1:03172] [[0,9999],1] ORTE_ERROR_LOG: Unreachable in file
>>>>>> grpcomm_hier_module.c at line 303
>>>>>> [c0301b10e1:03172] [[0,9999],1] ORTE_ERROR_LOG: Unreachable in file
>>>>>> base/grpcomm_base_modex.c at line 470
>>>>>> [c0301b10e1:03172] [[0,9999],1] ORTE_ERROR_LOG: Unreachable in file
>>>>>> grpcomm_hier_module.c at line 484
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> It looks like MPI_INIT failed for some reason; your parallel process is
>>>>>> likely to abort. There are many reasons that a parallel process can
>>>>>> fail during MPI_INIT; some of which are due to configuration or
>>>>>> environment
>>>>>> problems. This failure appears to be an internal failure; here's some
>>>>>> additional information (which may only be relevant to an Open MPI
>>>>>> developer):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> orte_grpcomm_modex failed
>>>>>> --> Returned "Unreachable" (-12) instead of "Success" (0)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> *** The MPI_Init() function was called before MPI_INIT was invoked.
>>>>>> *** This is disallowed by the MPI standard.
>>>>>> *** Your MPI job will now abort.
>>>>>> [c0301b10e1:3172] Abort before MPI_INIT completed successfully; not
>>>>>> able to guarantee that all other processes were killed!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> maybe a related question is how to assign the TCP port range and how
>>>>>> is it used? when the processes are on different machines, I use the
>>>>>> same range and that's ok as long as the range is free. but when the
>>>>>> processes are on the same node, what value should the range be for
>>>>>> each process? My range is 10000-12000 (for both processes) and I see
>>>>>> that process with rank #0 listen on port 10001 while process with rank
>>>>>> #1 try to establish a connect to port 10000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks so much!
>>>>>> p. still here... still trying... ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Use what hostname returns - don't worry about IP addresses as we'll
>>>>>>> discover them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2010, at 10:45 PM, Philippe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> now, for the ev "OMPI_MCA_orte_nodes", what do I put exactly? our
>>>>>>>> nodes have a short/long name (it's rhel 5.x, so the command hostname
>>>>>>>> returns the long name) and at least 2 IP addresses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> p.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Okay, fixed in r23499. Thanks again...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:47 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Doh - yes it should! I'll fix it right now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Philippe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> i was able to test the generic module and it seems to be working.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> one question tho, the function orte_ess_generic_component_query
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> "orte/mca/ess/generic/ess_generic_component.c" calls getenv with
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> argument "OMPI_MCA_enc", which seems to cause the module to fail
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> load. shouldnt it be "OMPI_MCA_ess" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> .....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /* only pick us if directed to do so */
>>>>>>>>>>> if (NULL != (pick = getenv("OMPI_MCA_env")) &&
>>>>>>>>>>> 0 == strcmp(pick, "generic")) {
>>>>>>>>>>> *priority = 1000;
>>>>>>>>>>> *module = (mca_base_module_t *)&orte_ess_generic_module;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> p.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dev trunk looks okay right now - I think you'll be fine using
>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> My new component -might- work with 1.5, but probably not with
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4. I haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>> checked either of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything at r23478 or above will have the new module. Let me
>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>> how it works for you. I haven't tested it myself, but am pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>> sure it
>>>>>>>>>>>> should work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 22, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Philippe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give it a try and let you know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know it's a tough question, but how stable is the dev trunk?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just grab the latest and run, or am I better off taking your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and copy them back in a stable release? (if so, which one? 1.4?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> p.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ralph Castain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <r...@open-mpi.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was easier for me to just construct this module than to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain how to do so :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will commit it this evening (couple of hours from now) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is our standard practice. You'll need to use the developer's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk, though,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are the envars you'll need to provide:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Each process needs to get the same following values:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * OMPI_MCA_ess=generic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * OMPI_MCA_orte_num_procs=<number of MPI procs>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * OMPI_MCA_orte_nodes=<a comma-separated list of nodenames
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI procs reside>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * OMPI_MCA_orte_ppn=<number of procs/node>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that I have assumed this last value is a constant for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplicity. If that isn't the case, let me know - you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it as a comma-separated list of values with an entry for each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, you need to provide the following value that will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unique to each process:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * OMPI_MCA_orte_rank=<MPI rank>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, you have to provide a range of static TCP ports for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the processes. Pick any range that you know will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available across all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nodes. You then need to ensure that each process sees the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> envar:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * OMPI_MCA_oob_tcp_static_ports=6000-6010 <== obviously,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this with your range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will need a port range that is at least equal to the ppn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the job (each proc on a node will take one of the provided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ports).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That should do it. I compute everything else I need from those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does that work for you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>>>> us...@open-mpi.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>>> us...@open-mpi.org
>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>> us...@open-mpi.org
>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>> us...@open-mpi.org
>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> users mailing list
>>>> us...@open-mpi.org
>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> users mailing list
>>> us...@open-mpi.org
>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> us...@open-mpi.org
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> us...@open-mpi.org
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>
