On 11/07/08 11:23, Adrian Knoth wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 09:49:43AM -0500, Rolf Vandevaart wrote:
I do not think anyone will have a problem with this, but just thought I
would mention that I am planning on adding an additional interface to
the excluded list for the tcp btl. I want to
On Nov 7, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Leonardo Fialho wrote:
I understand that a process need to have the contact information to
send MPI messages to other processes, and modex permits it. My
question is, why do not perform the contact exchange when it is
necessary?
For example: in a M/W
George,
I made some tests with the libevent but probably I´m doing something
wrong... because it does not work.
struct timeval time;
opal_event_t *ev;
ev = (opal_event_t*)malloc(sizeof(opal_event_t));
opal_evtimer_set(ev, my_func, NULL);
time.tv_sec = 10;
time.tv_usec = 0;
On Nov 7, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Timothy Hayes wrote:
http://macneill.cs.tcd.ie/~hayesti/ompi.jpg
This is unfortunately not available to the outside world.
N.B. The XEN component in the BTL layer represents what I'm trying
to make.
So far so good, the BTL is what you need in order to move
Leonardo,
All events generated by the libevent are catched internally by the
ompi library, but are not propagated until the next call to
opal_progress. If you want to use alarms that trigger outside the
opal_progress you will have to deal directly with the libevent (and
not use
Hi All,
Does the libevent works with an application which does not communicate?
i.e. I have an application which does not receive or send messages for a
long time, but on the PML layer a have defined some event using the
ORTE_TIMER_EVENT(time, func) macro. This macro will be should be called
Hi everyone,
Thank you all for your replies. I've now read those additional papers and
went through the slides of the Open MPI workshop. I'm still a bit hazy on
the architecture of Open MPI (especially relevant to my project) so what
I've done is written what I think I understand about process to
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 09:49:43AM -0500, Rolf Vandevaart wrote:
> I do not think anyone will have a problem with this, but just thought I
> would mention that I am planning on adding an additional interface to
> the excluded list for the tcp btl. I want to add "sppp" to the list.
> This is
Hi folks
Just wanted to let you know that I have updated the wiki page for the
Dec design meeting with a proposed agenda. Some off-list discussions
have added a little more detail to some of the areas, and modified
some of the priorities - as you will see, the plate is going to be -
very-
Hi All,
I understand that a process need to have the contact information to send
MPI messages to other processes, and modex permits it. My question is,
why do not perform the contact exchange when it is necessary?
For example: in a M/W application, the workers does not need more
information
I do not think anyone will have a problem with this, but just thought I
would mention that I am planning on adding an additional interface to
the excluded list for the tcp btl. I want to add "sppp" to the list.
This is an internal interface to one of our servers and needs to be
treated like
It bothers me a bit that the OMPI RTE library is called by a prior
name, and based on these reactions, we're likely to be stuck with this
name for a long time. I guess I'll cope.
On Nov 7, 2008, at 7:38 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
Just in case anyone wonders: I can understand Jeff's
Just in case anyone wonders: I can understand Jeff's motivation to
rationalize the libraries name with what is in it. There is no
"OpenRTE" any more - it has truly become the "OMPI RTE" - so I
sympathize with what he was trying to do.
That said, I truly don't have strong feelings either
I do not see the real value in doing this name change. The name "OMPI
Run Time Environment" and libopen_rte.so are not that far from each
other. Changing a bunch of Makefile.am's at this point in the game for
what I consider a minor cosmetic difference just makes little sense to me.
On the
14 matches
Mail list logo
