ncy increase. Doesn't that need attention,
> too?
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Scott Atchley wrote:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> I posted a patch on the ticket.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Scott Atchley wrote:
>>
On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Scott Atchley wrote:
>
>> I posted a patch for this on the ticket.
>
> Will someone be committing this to SVN?
>
> I re-opened the ticket because just posting a patch to the ticket doesn&#x
Jeff,
I posted a patch for this on the ticket.
Scott
On Aug 26, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Scott Atchley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I compiled 1.4.3rc1 with MX 1.2.12 on RHEL 5.4 (2.6.18-164.el5). It does not
> like the memory manager and MX. Compiling using --without-memory-manager
>
Jeff,
I posted a patch on the ticket.
Scott
On Aug 27, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Scott Atchley wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Sure, I need to register to file the tickets.
>
> I have not had a chance yet. I will try to look at them first thing next week.
>
> Scott
>
> On Aug 27, 201
gt; blockers.
>
> Have you been able to track these down any further, perchance?
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Scott Atchley wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Testing 1.5rc5 over MX with the same setup as 1.4.3rc1 (RHEL 5.4 and MX
>> 1.2.12).
>>
>
Hi all,
Testing 1.5rc5 over MX with the same setup as 1.4.3rc1 (RHEL 5.4 and MX 1.2.12).
This version also dies during init due to the memory manager if I do not
specify which pml to use. If I specify pml ob1 or pml cm, the tests start but
die with segfaults:
131072 320 1
Hi all,
I compiled 1.4.3rc1 with MX 1.2.12 on RHEL 5.4 (2.6.18-164.el5). It does not
like the memory manager and MX. Compiling using --without-memory-manager works
fine. The output below is form the default configure (i.e.
--with-memory-manager).
Note, I still see unusual latencies for some te
On Oct 21, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
George Bosilca wrote:
On Oct 21, 2009, at 13:42 , Scott Atchley wrote:
On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:25 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
Because MX doesn't provide a real RMA protocol, we created a fake
one on top of point-to-point. The two peers ha
On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:25 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
Brice,
Because MX doesn't provide a real RMA protocol, we created a fake
one on top of point-to-point. The two peers have to agree on a
unique tag, then the receiver posts it before the sender starts the
send. However, as this is integrat
George,
When asked about MTL versus BTL, we always suggest that users try both
with their application and determine which is best. I have had
customers report the BTL is better on Solaris (memory registration is
expensive and the BTL can overlap registration and communication when
it frag
On Jan 22, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Bogdan Costescu wrote:
I'm still having some troubles using the newly released 1.3 with
Myricom's MX. I've meant to send a message earlier, but the release
candidates went so fast that I didn't have time to catch up and test.
General details:
Nodes with
On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Bogdan Costescu wrote:
I don't get to that point... I am not even able to use the wrapper
compilers (f.e. mpif90) to obtain an executable to run. The
segmentation fault happens when Open MPI utilities are being run, even
ompi_info.
Ahh, I thought you were getting
r).
Thanks,
Scott
--
Scott Atchley
Myricom Inc.
http://www.myri.com
Terry,
Are you testing on Linux? If so, which kernel?
See the patch to iperf to handle kernel 2.6.21 and the issue that
they had with usleep(0):
http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf2.0/patch-iperf-linux-2.6.21.txt
Scott
On Aug 31, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Terry D. Dontje wrote:
Ok, I have an up
On Aug 13, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Pavel Shamis (Pasha) wrote:
Any objections? We can discuss what approaches we want to take
(there's going to be some complications because of the PML driver,
etc.); perhaps in the Tuesday Mellanox teleconf...?
My main objection is that the only reason you propose
15 matches
Mail list logo
