Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/05/14 00:16, Joshua Ladd wrote: > The necessary packages will be supported and available in community > OFED. We're constrained to what is in RHEL6 I'm afraid. This is because we have to run GPFS over IB to BG/Q from the same NSDs that talk

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/14 23:45, Ralph Castain wrote: > Artem and I are working on a new PMIx plugin that will resolve it > for non-Mellanox cases. Ah yes of course, sorry my bad! - -- Christopher SamuelSenior Systems Administrator VLSCI - Victorian

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Chris, The necessary packages will be supported and available in community OFED. Josh On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Chris Samuel wrote: > On Thu, 8 May 2014 09:10:00 AM Joshua Ladd wrote: > > > We (MLNX) are working on a new SLURM PMI2 plugin that we plan to >

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

On May 8, 2014, at 6:23 AM, Chris Samuel wrote: > On Thu, 8 May 2014 09:10:00 AM Joshua Ladd wrote: > >> We (MLNX) are working on a new SLURM PMI2 plugin that we plan to eventually >> push upstream. However, to use it, it will require linking in a proprietary >> Mellanox

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

On Thu, 8 May 2014 09:10:00 AM Joshua Ladd wrote: > We (MLNX) are working on a new SLURM PMI2 plugin that we plan to eventually > push upstream. However, to use it, it will require linking in a proprietary > Mellanox library that accelerates the collective operations (available in > MOFED

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

stream? > -Adam > > > -- > *From:* devel [devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] on behalf of Joshua Ladd [ > jladd.m...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 07, 2014 7:56 AM > *To:* Open MPI Developers > > *Subject:* Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is &g

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/14 12:54, Ralph Castain wrote: > I think there was one 2.6.x that was borked, and definitely > problems in the 14.03.x line. Can't pinpoint it for you, though. No worries, thanks. > Sounds good. I'm going to have to dig deeper into those

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

2014-05-08 9:54 GMT+07:00 Ralph Castain : > > On May 7, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Christopher Samuel > wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hi all, > > > > Apologies for having dropped out of the thread, night intervened here. >

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

On May 7, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Christopher Samuel wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all, > > Apologies for having dropped out of the thread, night intervened here. ;-) > > On 08/05/14 00:45, Ralph Castain wrote: > >> Okay, then we'll just

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

On May 7, 2014, at 6:51 PM, Christopher Samuel wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/05/14 18:00, Ralph Castain wrote: > >> Interesting - how many nodes were involved? As I said, the bad >> scaling becomes more evident at a fairly high node

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

That is interesting. I think I will reconstruct your experiments on my system when I will be testing PMI selection logic. According to your resource count numbers I can do that. I will publish my results in the list. 2014-05-08 8:51 GMT+07:00 Christopher Samuel : >

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Hi Chris. Current disign is to provide the runtime parameter for PMI version selection. It would be even more flexible that configuration-time selection and (with my current understanding) not very hard to acheive. 2014-05-08 8:15 GMT+07:00 Christopher Samuel : >

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/05/14 18:00, Ralph Castain wrote: > Interesting - how many nodes were involved? As I said, the bad > scaling becomes more evident at a fairly high node count. Our x86-64 systems are low node counts (we've got BG/Q for capacity), the cluster

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, Apologies for having dropped out of the thread, night intervened here. ;-) On 08/05/14 00:45, Ralph Castain wrote: > Okay, then we'll just have to develop a workaround for all those > Slurm releases where PMI-2 is borked :-( Do you know

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

2014-05-08 7:15 GMT+07:00 Ralph Castain : > Take a look in opal/mca/common/pmi - we already do a bunch of #if PMI2 > stuff in there. All we are talking about doing here is: > > * making those selections be runtime based on an MCA param, compiling if > PMI2 is available but

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Take a look in opal/mca/common/pmi - we already do a bunch of #if PMI2 stuff in there. All we are talking about doing here is: * making those selections be runtime based on an MCA param, compiling if PMI2 is available but selected at runtime * moving some additional functions into that code

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

I like #2 too. But my question was slightly different. Can we incapsulate PMI logic that OMPI use in common/pmi as #2 suggests but have 2 different implementations of this component say common/pmi and common/pmi2? I am asking because I have concerns that this kind of component is not supposed to

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

The desired solution is to have the ability to select pmi-1 vs pmi-2 at runtime. This can be done in two ways: 1. you could have separate pmi1 and pmi2 components in each framework. You'd want to define only one common MCA param to direct the selection, however. 2. you could have a single pmi

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Just reread your suggestions in our out-of-list discussion and found that I misunderstand it. So no parallel PMI! Take all possible code into opal/mca/common/pmi. To additionally clarify what is the preferred way: 1. to create one joined PMI module having a switches to decide what functiononality

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

2014-05-08 5:54 GMT+07:00 Ralph Castain : > Ummmno, I don't think that's right. I believe we decided to instead > create the separate components, default to PMI-2 if available, print nice > error message if not, otherwise use PMI-1. > > I don't want to initialize both PMIs

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Ummmno, I don't think that's right. I believe we decided to instead create the separate components, default to PMI-2 if available, print nice error message if not, otherwise use PMI-1. I don't want to initialize both PMIs in parallel as most installations won't support it. On May 7,

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

We discussed with Ralph Joshuas concerns and decided to try automatic PMI2 correctness first as it was initially intended. Here is my idea. The universal way to decide if PMI2 is correct is to compare PMI_Init(.., , , ...) and PMI2_Init(.., , , ...). Size and rank should be equal. In this case we

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Yeah, we'll want to move some of it into common - but a lot of that was already done, so I think it won't be that hard. Will explore On May 7, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Joshua Ladd wrote: > +1 Sounds like a good idea - but decoupling the two and adding all the right > selection

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

+1 Sounds like a good idea - but decoupling the two and adding all the right selection mojo might be a bit of a pain. There are several places in OMPI where the distinction between PMI1and PMI2 is made, not only in grpcomm. DB and ESS frameworks off the top of my head. Josh On Wed, May 7, 2014

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Good idea :)! среда, 7 мая 2014 г. пользователь Ralph Castain написал: > Jeff actually had a useful suggestion (gasp!).He proposed that we separate > the PMI-1 and PMI-2 codes into separate components so you could select them > at runtime. Thus, we would build both (assuming both PMI-1 and 2

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Jeff actually had a useful suggestion (gasp!).He proposed that we separate the PMI-1 and PMI-2 codes into separate components so you could select them at runtime. Thus, we would build both (assuming both PMI-1 and 2 libs are found), default to PMI-1, but users could select to try PMI-2. If the

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Developers Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested Ah, I see. Sorry for the reactionary comment - but this feature falls squarely within my "jurisdiction", and we've invested a lot in improving OMPI jobstart under srun. That

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Thanks, Chris. -Adam From: devel [devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] on behalf of Christopher Samuel [sam...@unimelb.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 12:07 AM To: de...@open-mpi.org Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

On May 7, 2014, at 7:56 AM, Joshua Ladd wrote: > Ah, I see. Sorry for the reactionary comment - but this feature falls > squarely within my "jurisdiction", and we've invested a lot in improving OMPI > jobstart under srun. > > That being said (now that I've taken some

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Ah, I see. Sorry for the reactionary comment - but this feature falls squarely within my "jurisdiction", and we've invested a lot in improving OMPI jobstart under srun. That being said (now that I've taken some deep breaths and carefully read your original email :)), what you're proposing isn't a

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Okay, then we'll just have to develop a workaround for all those Slurm releases where PMI-2 is borked :-( FWIW: I think people misunderstood my statement. I specifically did *not* propose to *lose* PMI-2 support. I suggested that we change it to "on-by-request" instead of the current

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Just saw this thread, and I second Chris' observations: at scale we are seeing huge gains in jobstart performance with PMI2 over PMI1. We *CANNOT*loose this functionality. For competitive reasons, I cannot provide exact numbers, but let's say the difference is in the ballpark of a full

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Interesting - how many nodes were involved? As I said, the bad scaling becomes more evident at a fairly high node count. On May 7, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Christopher Samuel wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hiya Ralph, > > On 07/05/14 14:49,

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hiya Ralph, On 07/05/14 14:49, Ralph Castain wrote: > I should have looked closer to see the numbers you posted, Chris - > those include time for MPI wireup. So what you are seeing is that > mpirun is much more efficient at exchanging the MPI

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

I should have looked closer to see the numbers you posted, Chris - those include time for MPI wireup. So what you are seeing is that mpirun is much more efficient at exchanging the MPI endpoint info than PMI. I suspect that PMI2 is not much better as the primary reason for the difference is

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

Ah, interesting - my comments were in respect to startup time (specifically, MPI wireup) On May 6, 2014, at 8:49 PM, Christopher Samuel wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/05/14 13:37, Moody, Adam T. wrote: > >> Hi Chris, > > Hi Adam, >

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/05/14 13:37, Moody, Adam T. wrote: > Hi Chris, Hi Adam, > I'm interested in SLURM / OpenMPI startup numbers, but I haven't > done this testing myself. We're stuck with an older version of > SLURM for various internal reasons, and I'm

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is specifically requested

el > [sam...@unimelb.edu.au] > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:32 PM > To: de...@open-mpi.org > Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Force Slurm to use PMI-1 unless PMI-2 is > specifically requested > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/05/14 12:53