Re: [OMPI devel] Need to know your Github ID

bbenton -> bbenton On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > As the next step of the planned migration to Github, I need to know: > > - Your Github ID (so that you can be added to the new OMPI git repo) > - Your SVN ID (so that I can map SVN->Github

Re: [OMPI devel] openib max_cqe

I am running into similar issues with both Mellanox and IBM HCAs. On a node installed with RHEL6.2 and MLNX_OFED-1.5.3-3.0.0, there is a significant hit to locked memory when going with the device's max_cqe. Here, for comparison's sake is the memory utilization for a simple MPI process when using

Re: [hwloc-devel] PPC64 problem with hwloc 1.1.1

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@inria.fr>wrote: > Hello, > > Brad Benton, le Wed 23 Feb 2011 03:48:17 +0100, a écrit : > > Attached are two sets of info...one for the case when SMT > > (Simultaneous MultiThreading) is off, and the othe

Re: [hwloc-devel] PPC64 problem with hwloc 1.1.1

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > Done! > > But we still need that info from Brad. :-) > > (just in case he's only lightly reading this thread...) > Attached are two sets of info...one for the case when SMT (Simultaneous MultiThreading) is off, and the

Re: [OMPI devel] OMPI 1.4.3 hangs in gather

What IP interfaces are configured on the cluster? In particular, are there IPoIB interfaces that are configured? If you use the dynamic connection method but restrict either the number or type of IP interfaces to be used via oob_tcp_if_{include,exclude}, do you still see the problem? --brad

Re: [OMPI devel] [Fwd: strong ordering for data registered memory]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Terry Dontje wrote: > Jeff Squyres wrote: > >> On Nov 11, 2009, at 8:13 AM, Terry Dontje wrote: >> >> Sun's IB group has asked me to forward the following email to see if >>> anyone has any comments on this email. >>> >>> >> Tastes great /

Re: [OMPI devel] 1.3.3 Release Schedule

n%20MPI%201.3.3>--brad > > > On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Brad Benton wrote: > > All: >> >> We are close to releasing 1.3.3. This is the current plan: >> - Evening of 6/16: collect MTT runs on the current branch w/the current >> 1.3.3 features & f

[OMPI devel] 1.3.3 Release Schedule

All: We are close to releasing 1.3.3. This is the current plan: - Evening of 6/16: collect MTT runs on the current branch w/the current 1.3.3 features & fixes - If all goes well with the overnight MTT runs, roll a release candidate on 6/17 - Put 1.3.3rc1 through its paces over the next

[OMPI devel] Fwd: [Open MPI Announce] Critical bug notice

In reference to this critical bug, there are implications for the current 1.3.x release schedule that are alluded to in Jeff's message. In particular, there are two time-critical issues at play: 1) getting a fix for #1853 in time for inclusion for OFED-1.4.1 2) getting in Sun's changes/CMRs in

Re: [OMPI devel] 1.3.1rc5

Things look good from the IBM side as well. So, RM-approved for release. --brad ompi 1.3 co-release manager On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > Looks good to cisco. Ship it. > > I'm still seeing a very low incidence of the sm segv during startup (.01%

Re: [OMPI devel] 1.3.1?

Ahh...replied to the MTT segv thread...but will reiterate here: George & I talked and we are in agreement that we should go ahead and release 1.3.1 as it currently stands. Now on to 1.3.2! --brad On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > So -- RM's -- can we

Re: [OMPI devel] reduce_scatter bug with hierarch

r20275 looks good. I suggest that we CMR that into 1.3 and get rc6 rolled and tested. (actually, Jeff just did the CMR...so off to rc6) --brad On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Edgar Gabriel wrote: > so I am not entirely sure why the bug only happened on trunk, it could in >

Re: [OMPI devel] reduce_scatter bug with hierarch

So, if it looks okay on 1.3...then there should not be anything holding up the release, right? Otherwise, George we need to decide on whether or not this is a blocker, or if we go ahead and release with this as a known issue and schedule the fix for 1.3.1. My vote is to go ahead and release, but

[OMPI devel] Schedule for 1.3 Release Candidates and final Release

on the release candidates as they become available. Thanks, --brad Brad Benton Open MPI v1.3 co-release manager

Re: [OMPI devel] trunk hangs since r19010

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Terry Dontje wrote: > Jeff Squyres wrote: > >> On Jul 28, 2008, at 12:03 PM, George Bosilca wrote: >> >> Interesting. The self is only used for local communications. I don't >>> expect that any benchmark execute such communications, but

Re: [OMPI devel] trunk hangs since r19010

My experience is the same a Lenny's. I've tested on x86_64 and ppc64 systems and tests using --mca btl openib,self hang in all cases. --brad 2008/7/28 Lenny Verkhovsky > I failed to run on different nodes or on the same node via self,openib > > > > On 7/28/08,

Re: [OMPI devel] v1.3 RM: need a ruling

I think this is very reasonable to go ahead and include for 1.3. I find that preferable to a 1.3-specific "wonky" workaround. Plus, this sounds like something that is very good to have in general. --brad On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > v1.3 RMs: Due

[OMPI devel] Branching the trunk for 1.3, and branch update policy

All: The trunk is now ready to be branched for the 1.3 release. Jeff has volunteered to do the branch in his copious spare time (thanks Jeff!). So, I expect that to happen either this evening or sometime tomorrow. There are numerous tickets to resolve to get 1.3 ready for release. So, for the

Re: [OMPI devel] warn when fork() used with openib btl?

I think this is a good idea, and for the reasons you outline in your Rationale. This definitely bites people from time to time at Big Blue as well, and a gentle warning will certainly help. --brad On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > Those who care about

Re: [OMPI devel] Memory hooks change testing

np...i'll give it another try (and will correspondingly endeavor to mollify the mercurial gods as best i can). thx, --brad On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Brian W. Barrett wrote: > Brad unfortunately figured out I had done something to annoy the gods of > mercurial and

Re: [OMPI devel] Trunk check-in policy until the branch for 1.3

quot;. So, unless George has an objection, I'm fine with that. --Brad > > Rich > > > > On 5/20/08 5:53 PM, "Brad Benton" <bradford.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: > > All: > > In order to better track changes on the trunk until we branch for 1.3, we

[OMPI devel] Trunk check-in policy until the branch for 1.3

All: In order to better track changes on the trunk until we branch for 1.3, we (the release managers) would like to ask that all trunk checkins have corresponding tickets associated with them. This will help us to keep better track of the state of the trunk prior to branching. Note, this is

Re: [OMPI devel] v1.3 Feature Freeze in effect

Yes...bug fixes are definitely allowed. We won't go to controlled commits until after branching. --brad On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Terry Dontje <terry.don...@sun.com> wrote: > I am right to assume that bug fixes are allowed. > > --td > > Brad Benton wrote: > &g

[OMPI devel] v1.3 Feature Freeze in effect

(cutoff date for them is May 20) - Final parts of 1.3 Thread Multiple Support - Send & Receive changes for improved latency (#1250<https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/1250> ) - XML component for orte_output() and friends Thanks, --Brad Brad Benton Open M

[OMPI devel] 1.3 Release schedule and contents

fellow 1.3co-release manager George Bosilca ( bosi...@eecs.utk.edu) know of any issues, errors, suggestions, omissions, heartburn, etc. Thanks, --Brad Brad Benton IBM