> -Original Message-
> From: users-boun...@open-mpi.org [mailto:users-boun...@open-mpi.org] On
> Behalf Of Bill Rankin
> Sent: 23 November 2010 19:32
> To: Open MPI Users
> Subject: Re: [OMPI users] MPI_Comm_split
>
> Hicham:
>
> > If I have a 256 mpi processes in 1 communicator, am I
Hicham:
> If I have a 256 mpi processes in 1 communicator, am I able to split
> that communicator, then again split the resulting 2 subgroups, then
> again the resulting 4 subgroups and so on, until potentially having 256
> subgroups?
You can. But as the old saying goes: "just because you *can*
George Markomanolis wrote:
Dear Eugene,
Thanks a lot for the answer you were right for the eager mode.
I have one more question. I am looking for an official tool to measure
the ping time, just sending a message of 1 byte or more and measure
the duration of the MPI_Send command on the rank
Hello
If I have a 256 mpi processes in 1 communicator, am I able to split that
communicator, then again split the resulting 2 subgroups, then again the
resulting 4 subgroups and so on, until potentially having 256 subgroups?
Is this insane in terms of performance?
regards,
>MPI doesn't necessarily mean SPMD -- you can certainly have the GUI call
>MPI_INIT and then call MPI_COMM_SPAWN to launch a different >executable to do
>the compute working stuff.
>--
>Jeff Squyres
>jsquyres_at_[hidden]
This is confusing to me.
If the GUI does that, will the GUI process
On 11/22/2010 08:18 PM, Paul Monday (Parallel Scientific) wrote:
This is a follow-up to an earlier question, I'm trying to understand how --mca
btl prioritizes it's choice for connectivity. Going back to my original
network, there are actually two networks running around. A point to point
Hi Jeff,
thanks for the explanation - I should have read the MPI standard more carefully.
In the end, I traced the bug down to using standard send instead of
synchronous send,
so it had nothing to do with the receiving side at all.
Best regards,
Riccardo
