Hardly the hoped-for quick turnaround, but it has been fixed in master and will go into v3.0, which is planned for release in the near future
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 6:26 PM, Adam Sylvester <op8...@gmail.com > <mailto:op8...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Excellent - I appreciate the quick turnaround. > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:24 AM, r...@open-mpi.org > <mailto:r...@open-mpi.org> <r...@open-mpi.org <mailto:r...@open-mpi.org>> > wrote: > I don’t see an issue right away, though I know it has been brought up before. > I hope to resolve it either this week or next - will reply to this thread > with the PR link when ready. > > >> On Mar 13, 2017, at 6:16 PM, Adam Sylvester <op8...@gmail.com >> <mailto:op8...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Bummer - thanks for the update. I will revert back to 1.10.x for now then. >> Should I file a bug report for this on GitHub or elsewhere? Or if there's >> an issue for this already open, can you point me to it so I can keep track >> of when it's fixed? Any best guess calendar-wise as to when you expect this >> to be fixed? >> >> Thanks. >> >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:45 AM, r...@open-mpi.org >> <mailto:r...@open-mpi.org> <r...@open-mpi.org <mailto:r...@open-mpi.org>> >> wrote: >> You should consider it a bug for now - it won’t work in the 2.0 series, and >> I don’t think it will work in the upcoming 2.1.0 release. Probably will be >> fixed after that. >> >> >>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 5:17 AM, Adam Sylvester <op8...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:op8...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> As a follow-up, I tried this with Open MPI 1.10.4 and this worked as >>> expected (the port formatting looks really different): >>> >>> $ mpirun -np 1 ./server >>> Port name is >>> 1286733824.0;tcp://10.102.16.135:43074+1286733825.0;tcp://10.102.16.135::300 >>> <> >>> Accepted! >>> >>> $ mpirun -np 1 ./client >>> "1286733824.0;tcp://10.102.16.135:43074+1286733825.0;tcp://10.102.16.135::300 >>> <>" >>> Trying with >>> '1286733824.0;tcp://10.102.16.135:43074+1286733825.0;tcp://10.102.16.135::300' >>> <> >>> Connected! >>> >>> I've found some other posts of users asking about similar things regarding >>> the 2.x release - is this a bug? >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Adam Sylvester <op8...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:op8...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> I'm using Open MPI 2.0.2 on RHEL 7. I'm trying to use MPI_Open_port() / >>> MPI_Comm_accept() / MPI_Conn_connect(). My use case is that I'll have two >>> processes running on two machines that don't initially know about each >>> other (i.e. I can't do the typical mpirun with a list of IPs); eventually I >>> think I may need to use ompi-server to accomplish what I want but for now >>> I'm trying to test this out running two processes on the same machine with >>> some toy programs. >>> >>> server.cpp creates the port, prints it, and waits for a client to accept >>> using it: >>> >>> #include <mpi.h> >>> #include <iostream> >>> >>> int main(int argc, char** argv) >>> { >>> MPI_Init(NULL, NULL); >>> >>> char myport[MPI_MAX_PORT_NAME]; >>> MPI_Comm intercomm; >>> >>> MPI_Open_port(MPI_INFO_NULL, myport); >>> std::cout << "Port name is " << myport << std::endl; >>> >>> MPI_Comm_accept(myport, MPI_INFO_NULL, 0, MPI_COMM_SELF, &intercomm); >>> >>> std::cout << "Accepted!" << std::endl; >>> >>> MPI_Finalize(); >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> client.cpp takes in this port on the command line and tries to connect to >>> it: >>> >>> #include <mpi.h> >>> #include <iostream> >>> >>> int main(int argc, char** argv) >>> { >>> MPI_Init(NULL, NULL); >>> >>> MPI_Comm intercomm; >>> >>> const std::string name(argv[1]); >>> std::cout << "Trying with '" << name << "'" << std::endl; >>> MPI_Comm_connect(name.c_str(), MPI_INFO_NULL, 0, MPI_COMM_SELF, >>> &intercomm); >>> >>> std::cout << "Connected!" << std::endl; >>> >>> MPI_Finalize(); >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> I run the server first: >>> $ mpirun ./server >>> Port name is 2720137217.0:595361386 >>> >>> Then a second later I run the client: >>> $ mpirun ./client 2720137217.0:595361386 >>> Trying with '2720137217.0:595361386' >>> >>> Both programs hang for awhile and then eventually time out. I have a >>> feeling I'm misunderstanding something and doing something dumb but from >>> all the examples I've seen online it seems like this should work. >>> >>> Thanks for the help. >>> -Adam >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> users mailing list >>> users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org> >>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> <https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org> >> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> <https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org> >> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> <https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users> > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org> > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users > <https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users> > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org> > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users
