the public repo.
As I had write access there, I just committed the results from our system there.
Best
Christoph
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Squyres"
To: "Open MPI Developers List"
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 5:49:05 PM
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Performance ana
Polyakov
> > > > wrote:
> > > > That's a good question. I have results myself and I don't know where to
> > > > place them.
> > > > I think that Arm's repo is not a right place to collect the data.
> > > >
> > > >
place to collect the data.
> > > >
> > > > Jeff, can we create the repo in open mpi organization on github or
> do we have something appropriate already?
> > > >
> > > > четверг, 25 августа 2016 г. пользователь Christoph Niethammer
> написал:
> &g
t; > >
> > > Jeff, can we create the repo in open mpi organization on github or do we
> > > have something appropriate already?
> > >
> > > четверг, 25 августа 2016 г. пользователь Christoph Niethammer написал:
> > >
> > > Hi Artem
n open mpi organization on github or do
> we have something appropriate already?
> > >
> > > четверг, 25 августа 2016 г. пользователь Christoph Niethammer написал:
> > >
> > > Hi Artem,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the links. I tested now with 1.10.3, 2.0.0+sm/
lysis proposal
> >
> > Hi, Christoph
> >
> > Please, check
> > https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Request-refactoring-test for the
> > testing methodology and
> > https://github.com/open-mpi/2016-summer-perf-testing
> > for examples and launch s
r
> performance regression patch under
> > https://github.com/hjelmn/ompi/commit/4079eec9749e47dddc6acc9c0847b3
> 091601919f.patch
> > and master. I will do the 2.0.1rc in the next days as well.
> >
> > Is it possible to add me to the results repository at github or should I
&
ps://github.com/hjelmn/ompi/commit/4079eec9749e47dddc6acc9c0847b3091601919f.patch
> and master. I will do the 2.0.1rc in the next days as well.
>
> Is it possible to add me to the results repository at github or should I fork
> and request you to pull?
>
> Best
> Christoph
>
ready?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> четверг, 25 августа 2016 г. пользователь Christoph Niethammer написал:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Artem,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the links. I tested now with 1.10.3, 2.0.0+sm
t;>
>>>>>> Hi, Christoph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please, check https://github.com/open-mpi/om
>>>>>> pi/wiki/Request-refactoring-test for the testing methodology and
>>>>>> https://github.com/open-mpi/2016-summer-perf-tes
>>>>> https://github.com/open-mpi/2016-summer-perf-testing
>>>>> for examples and launch scripts.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-08-23 21:20 GMT+07:00 Christoph Niethammer < nietham...@hlrs.de
>>>>> > :
>>
ble to add me to the results repository at github or should
>>>> I fork and request you to pull?
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Christoph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "Artem Po
>>> and master. I will do the 2.0.1rc in the next days as well.
>>>
>>> Is it possible to add me to the results repository at github or should I
>>> fork and request you to pull?
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Christoph
>>>
>>>
>>&
e to the results repository at github or should I
>> fork and request you to pull?
>>
>> Best
>> Christoph
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -----
>> From: "Artem Polyakov"
>> To: "Open MPI Developers"
>> Sent: Tuesday, Au
e there any specific configure options you want to see enabled beside
> --enable-mpi-thread-multiple?
> How to commit results?
>
> Best
> Christoph Niethammer
>
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "Arm Patinyasakdikul (apatinya)" < apati...@cisco.com
&
repository at github or should I fork
and request you to pull?
Best
Christoph
- Original Message -
From: "Artem Polyakov"
To: "Open MPI Developers"
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 5:13:30 PM
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Performance analysis proposal
Hi, Christoph
Message -
> From: "Arm Patinyasakdikul (apatinya)"
> To: "Open MPI Developers"
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 8:41:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Performance analysis proposal
>
> Hey Artem, all,
>
> Thank you for the benchmark prototype. I have created th
t;Arm Patinyasakdikul (apatinya)"
To: "Open MPI Developers"
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 8:41:06 PM
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Performance analysis proposal
Hey Artem, all,
Thank you for the benchmark prototype. I have created the discussion page here
: https://github.com/open-mpi/2016
:devel-boun...@lists.open-mpi.org>> on
behalf of Artem Polyakov mailto:artpo...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: Open MPI Developers
mailto:devel@lists.open-mpi.org>>
Date: Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:42 PM
To: Open MPI Developers
mailto:devel@lists.open-mpi.org>>
Subject: Re: [OM
P.S. For the future reference we also need to keep launch scripts that were
used to be able to carefully reproduce. Jeff mentioned that on the wiki
page IFRC.
2016-07-29 12:42 GMT+07:00 Artem Polyakov :
> Thank you, Arm!
>
> Good to have vader results (I haven't tried it myself yet). Few
> commen
Thank you, Arm!
Good to have vader results (I haven't tried it myself yet). Few
comments/questions:
1. I guess we also want to have 1-threaded performance for the "baseline"
reference.
2. Have you tried to run with openib, as I mentioned on the call I had some
problems with it and I'm curious if y
I added some result to https://github.com/open-mpi/2016-summer-perf-testing
The result shows much better performance from 2.0.0 and master over 1.10.3 for
vader. The test ran with Artem’s version of benchmark on OB1, single node, bind
to socket.
We should have a place to discuss/comment/collab
On Jul 28, 2016, at 6:28 AM, Artem Polyakov wrote:
>
> Jeff and others,
>
> 1. The benchmark was updated to support shared memory case.
> 2. The wiki was updated with the benchmark description:
> https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Request-refactoring-test#benchmark-prototype
Sweet -- thanks
Jeff and others,
1. The benchmark was updated to support shared memory case.
2. The wiki was updated with the benchmark description:
https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Request-refactoring-test#benchmark-prototype
Let me know if we want to put this prototype to some general place. I think
it ma
On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:52 AM, Sreenidhi Bharathkar Ramesh via devel
wrote:
>
>> For Open MPI, it's basically THREAD_MULTIPLE and not-THREAD_MULTIPLE. I.e.,
>> there's no real difference between SINGLE, SERIALIZED, FUNNELED
>
> We were assuming that there would be cost due to
> locking/synchron
Hi Jeff,
>> 1. How about evaluating FUNNELED and SERIALIZED performance ?
>
> For Open MPI, it's basically THREAD_MULTIPLE and not-THREAD_MULTIPLE. I.e.,
> there's no real difference between SINGLE, SERIALIZED, FUNNELED
We were assuming that there would be cost due to
locking/synchronization in
26 matches
Mail list logo
