Hi Ralph, On 2014/06/25 2:51, Ralph Castain wrote: > Had a chance to review this with folks here, and we think that having > oversubscribe automatically set overload makes some sense. However, we do > want to retain the ability to separately specify oversubscribe and overload > as well since these two terms don't mean quite the same thing. > > Our proposal, therefore, is to have the --oversubscribe flag set both the > --map-by :oversubscribe and --bind-to :overload-allowed properties. If > someone specifies both the --oversubscribe flag and a conflicting directive > for one or both of the individual properties, then we'll error out with a > "bozo" message. i fully agree. > The use-cases you describe are (minus the crash) correct as the warning > only is emitted when you are overloaded (i.e., trying to bind to more cpus > than you have). So you won't get any warning when running on three nodes as > you have enough cpus for all the procs, etc. > > I'll investigate the crash once I get home and have access to a cluster > again. The problem likely has to do with not properly responding to the > failure to spawn. humm
because you already made the change described above(r32072), the crash does not occur any more. about the crash, i see things the other way around : spawn should have not failed. /* or spawn should have failed when running on a single node, at least for the sake of consistency */ but like i said, it works now, so it might be just pedantic to point a bug that is still here but that cannot be triggered ... Cheers, Gilles
