On 03/27/2014 01:53 PM, Sasso, John (GE Power & Water, Non-GE) wrote:
When a piece of software built against OpenMPI fails, I will see an
error referring to the rank of the MPI task which incurred the failure.
For example:
MPI_ABORT was invoked on rank 1236 in communicator MPI_COMM_WORLD
with e
On 02/03/2012 01:46 PM, Tom Rosmond wrote:
Recently the organization I work for bought a modest sized Linux cluster
for running large atmospheric data assimilation systems. In my
experience a glaring problem with systems of this kind is poor IO
performance. Typically they have 2 types of networ
On 2/1/2011 5:02 PM, Jeffrey A Cummings wrote:
I use OpenMPI on a variety of platforms: stand-alone servers running
Solaris on sparc boxes and Linux (mostly CentOS) on AMD/Intel boxes,
also Linux (again CentOS) on large clusters of AMD/Intel boxes. These
platforms all have some version of the 1.3
Rahul Nabar wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Gerry Creager wrote:
Most of that bandwidth is in marketing... Sorry, but it's not a high
performance switch.
Well, how does one figure out what exactly is a "hih performance
switch"? I've found this an exceedingly hard task. Like the OP po
Craig Plaisance wrote:
The switch we are using (Dell Powerconnect 6248) has a switching fabric
capacity of 184 Gb/s, which should be more than adequate for the 48
ports. Is this the same as backplane bandwidth?
Yes. If you are getting the behavior you describe, you are not getting
all that
Craig Plaisance wrote:
mpich2 now and post the results. So, does anyone know what causes the
wild oscillations in the throughput at larger message sizes and higher
network traffic? Thanks!
Your switch can't handle this amount of traffic on its backplane. We
have seen this often in similar
Craig Plaisance wrote:
Hi - I have compiled vasp 4.6.34 using the Intel fortran compiler 11.1
with openmpi 1.3.3 on a cluster of 104 nodes running Rocks 5.2 with two
quad core opterons connected by a Gbit ethernet. Running in parallel on
Latency of gigabit is likely your issue. Lower qualit
Jeff Layton wrote:
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jun 1, 2009, at 2:04 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
error: executing task of job 3084 failed: execution daemon on host
"compute-2-2.local" didn't accept task
This looks like an error message from the resource manager/scheduler
-- not from OMPI (i.e., OMPI
Ralph Castain wrote:
Ummmnot to put gasoline on the fire, but...if the data exchange is
blocking, why do you need to call a barrier op first? Just use an
appropriate blocking data exchange call (collective or whatever) and it
will "barrier" anyway.
Since I don't run these codes, I would
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Gerry Creager wrote:
We've been playing with it in a coupled atmosphere-ocean model to allow
the two to synchronize and exchange data. The models have differing
levels of physics complexity and the time step requirements are
significantly differ
Daniel De Marco wrote:
Hi Ralph,
* Ralph Castain [01/29/2009 14:27]:
It is quite likely that you have IPoIB on your system. In that case, the
TCP BTL will pickup that interface and use it.
If you have a specific interface you want to use, try -mca
btl_tcp_if_include eth0 (or whatever that i
Reuti wrote:
Hi,
Am 24.12.2008 um 07:55 schrieb Sangamesh B:
Thanks Reuti. That sorted out the problem.
Now mpiblast is able to run, but only on single node. i.e. mpiformatdb
-> 4 fragments, mpiblast - 4 processes. Since each node is having 4
cores, the job will run on a single node and works
update 2: (its like I am talking to myself ... :) must start using
decaf ...)
Joe Landman wrote:
Joe Landman wrote:
[...]
ok, fixed this. Turns out we have ipoib going, and one adapter needed
to be brought down and back up. Now the tcp version appears to be
running, though I do get the
Joe Landman wrote:
3) using btl to turn off sm and openib, generates lots of these messages:
[c1-8][0,1,4][btl_tcp_endpoint.c:572:mca_btl_tcp_endpoint_complete_connect]
connect() failed with errno=113
[...]
No route to host at -e line 1.
This is wrong, all the nodes are visible from all
Hi folks:
This is a deeper dive into the code that was giving me fits over the
last two weeks.
It uses MPI_Waitsome and MPI_Allstart to launch/monitor progress.
More on that in a moment.
The testing I have done to date on this platform suggests that
OpenMPI is working fine, though I
Hi folks:
I am running into a strange problem with Open-MPI 1.2.6, built using
gcc/g++ and intel ifort 10.1.015, atop an OFED stack (1.1-ish). The
problem appears to be that if I run using the tcp btl, disabling sm and
openib, the run completes successfully (on several different platforms),
Mukesh K Srivastava wrote:
Hi OMPI Community.
Is there any thought process to extend GCC support to OpenMPI or
implementation of OpenMPI specification in GCC for C, C++ & Fortran and
making it generally available for platforms which supports POSIX.
Hi Mukesh:
Open MPI is already written in
Hi Open-MPI team:
I am working on a build of mpiBLAST 1.5.0-pio, and found that the
code crashes immediately after launch with a seg fault. I used Open-MPI
1.2.6 built from the tarball (with just a --prefix directive).
I did just try the code with MPICH 1.2.7p1, and it runs fine. What
Torje Henriksen wrote:
[...]
Still, all eight cores are being used. I can see why you would want to
use all cores, and I can see that oversubscribing a sub-set of the
cores might seem silly. My question is, is it possible to do what I
want to do without hacking the open mpi code?
Could
/src/RPM"
+elif test -d /usr/src/packages; then
+need_root=1
+rpmtopdir="/usr/src/packages"
else
need_root=1
rpmtopdir="/usr/src/redhat"
--
Joe Landman
landman |at| scalableinformatics |dot| com
Mark Hahn wrote:
If there is an ABI then we have a fighting chance at focusing on the
applications and not the ever-so-slightly-strange version of whichever
flavor of MPI that they chose to use.
wonderful! yes: ABI standards are good and proprietary
implementations (which inherently provide
Jeff Squyres wrote:
I have a followup question:
Who, exactly, wants an MPI ABI? I have seen a vocal few voice their
opinions (both for and against). But these are not representative of
Me... please, please really... I don't want 7 MPI implementations on
my customers clusters anymo
22 matches
Mail list logo