Hi Quincey, a tracing feature in HDF5 would be pretty helpful, and
easier to use than IPM. There is a similar feature available in the
Cray MPI-IO library,where  you can set the environment variables

MPICH_MPIIO_XSTATS

to 1 or 2 to get detailed output of how the data is aggregated and
written from the the CB nodes (there's more information available from
the Cray document here: http://docs.cray.com/books/S-0013-10/).

But this wouldn't report on chunking or independent I/O through HDF5.

Mark

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Quincey Koziol <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mar 4, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Rob Latham wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 10:09:14AM -0500, Mark Howison wrote:
>>> Hi Matthieu,
>>>
>>> The Integrated Performance Monitor (IPM) v2 beta has a POSIX I/O
>>> tracing feature. This will give you detailed output of the underlying
>>> POSIX calls (such as open, write and read) made by your application
>>> (through the pHDF layer). You can download it here:
>>>
>>> http://tools.pub.lab.nm.ifi.lmu.de/web/ipm/
>>>
>>> To enable I/O tracing, you have to configure with
>>>
>>> ./configure --enable-posixio CFLAGS=-DHAVE_POSIXIO_TRACE
>>>
>>> You have to relink your application against the libipm.a that his
>>> produces (or you can enable the shared library and do an LD_PRELOAD).
>>> After you application runs, you'll have a text file for each MPI rank
>>> with the POSIX calls and their arguments.
>>
>> Matthieu Dorier was asking for a tuple of (rank,file,offset,size).
>>
>> I guess this really belongs on the ipm-hpc-help list, but IPM doesn't
>> actually give you the offset information.   It wraps fseek(3) but HDF5
>> using MPI-IO is probably going to call lseek(2), lseek64(2) some other
>> seek-like system call.
>>
>> IPM is pretty close, giving the file, size, and a timestamp all tucked
>> into a file-per-rank.
>
>        We've got a small project currently in the works that gives a minimal 
> amount of information back to the application: whether a collective I/O 
> write/read operation completed as a collective, or was broken down into an 
> independent operation (or some combination of those two, for chunked 
> datasets); which should help some.  I don't think we've got direct funding 
> for more effort in this direction currently, but I'd sure like to roll it 
> into a new set of funding (or work with someone who feels like submitting a 
> patch for this idea).
>
>        Quincey
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hdf-forum is for HDF software users discussion.
> [email protected]
> http://mail.hdfgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/hdf-forum_hdfgroup.org
>

_______________________________________________
Hdf-forum is for HDF software users discussion.
[email protected]
http://mail.hdfgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/hdf-forum_hdfgroup.org

Reply via email to