More UCX packages:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:53 AM Yossi Itigin wrote:
> Currently the target is RH 8
> And yes, UCX is also available on EPEL, for example:
That’s why we are leaving it in master - only removing it from release branch
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 20, 2018, at 7:02 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> Why not simply ompi_ignore it ? Removing a component to bring it back later
> would force us to lose all history. I would a rather add an
I understand and agree with your point. My initial email is just out of
Howard tested this BTL for Cray in the summer as well. So this seems to
only affected OPA hardware.
I just remember that in the summer, I have to make some change in libpsm2
to get this BTL to work for OPA. Maybe
We have too many discussion threads overlapping on the same email chain - so
let’s break the discussion on the OFI problem into its own chain.
We have been investigating this locally and found there are a number of
conflicts between the MTLs and the OFI/BTL stepping on each other. The correct
I already suggested the configure option, but it doesn’t solve the problem. I
wouldn’t be terribly surprised to find that Cray also has an undetected problem
given the nature of the issue - just a question of the amount of testing,
variety of environments, etc.
Nobody has to wait for the next
I suspect it is a question of what you tested and in which scenarios. Problem
is that it can bite someone and there isn’t a clean/obvious solution that
doesn’t require the user to do something - e.g., like having to know that they
need to disable a BTL. Matias has proposed an mca-based
Why not simply ompi_ignore it ? Removing a component to bring it back later
would force us to lose all history. I would a rather add an .ompi_ignore
and give an opportunity to power users do continue playing with it.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:04 PM Ralph H Castain wrote:
> I already
In the summer, I tested this BTL with along with the MTL and able to use
both of them interchangeably with no problem. I dont know what changed.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 7:06 PM Ralph H Castain wrote:
> We have too many discussion threads overlapping on the same email chain -
Sorry, I missed the 4.0 on the PR (despite being the first thing in the title).
> On Sep 20, 2018, at 22:15 , Ralph H Castain wrote:
> That’s why we are leaving it in master - only removing it from release branch
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 20, 2018, at 7:02 PM, George
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:03:44 +
Yossi Itigin wrote:
> UCX is on the way into RH distro and will be available and ON by
> default (auto-detectable by OMPI build process) automatically in the
> near future.
That is good to hear, already in the upcomming 7.6?
> Meanwhile, user can
UCX is on the way into RH distro and will be available and ON by default
(auto-detectable by OMPI build process) automatically in the near future.
Meanwhile, user can enable UCX by two methods:
1. Download & Install UCX from openucx.org and Build openmpi with it.
2. Download HPC-X from
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 20:49:52 +
"Jeff Squyres \(jsquyres\) via devel" wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2018, at 3:46 PM, Thananon Patinyasakdikul
> > I tested on our cluster (UTK). I will give a thumb up but I have
> > some comments.
> > What I understand with 4.0.
> > - openib btl is
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:24:53 +
"Gabriel, Edgar" wrote:
> I performed some tests on our Omnipath cluster, and I have a mixed
> bag of results with 4.0.0rc1
I've also tried it on our OPA cluster (skylake+centos-7+inbox) with
very similar results.
> compute-1-1.local.4351PSM2 has not been
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:18:35 +0200
Peter Kjellström wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:24:53 +
> "Gabriel, Edgar" wrote:
> > So bottom line, if I do
> > mpirun –mca btl^openib –mca mtl^ofi ….
> > my tests finish correctly, although mpirun will still return an
> > error.
Currently the target is RH 8
And yes, UCX is also available on EPEL, for example:
From: Peter Kjellström
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 2:11 PM
To: Yossi Itigin
Cc: Open MPI Developers
Mail list logo