On 12/19/2012 12:28 PM, marco atzeri wrote:
working on openmpi-1.7rc5.
It needs some cleaning and after I need to test.
built and passed test
http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2012/12/11855.php
Regards
Marco
On 12/19/2012 11:04 AM, Siegmar Gross wrote:
Hi
On 12/18/2012 6:55 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
...but only of v1.6.x.
okay, adding development version on Christmas wishlist
;-)
Can you build the package with thread and Java support?
--enable-mpi-java \
--enable-opal-multi-threads \
Hi
> On 12/18/2012 6:55 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > ...but only of v1.6.x.
>
> okay, adding development version on Christmas wishlist
> ;-)
Can you build the package with thread and Java support?
--enable-mpi-java \
--enable-opal-multi-threads \
--enable-mpi-thread-multiple \
On 12/18/2012 6:55 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
...but only of v1.6.x.
okay, adding development version on Christmas wishlist
;-)
On Dec 18, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
Also, be aware that the Cygwin folks have already released a fully functional
port of OMPI to that environment
...but only of v1.6.x.
On Dec 18, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> Also, be aware that the Cygwin folks have already released a fully functional
> port of OMPI to that environment as a package. So if you want OMPI on Cygwin,
> you can just download and install the Cygwin package - no
It's a historical and emotional decision that also used to have a
business driver. I learned MPI with LAM on Linux (minute's silence...)
and switched to OpenMPI when LAM went to join the big supercomputer in
the sky. Shortly after OpenMPI launched, we had some discussions about
a Windows
So a question - why do *you* use (native) OpenMPI on Windows, when
you could just download HPC Pack? Was it for any reason related
to implementation?
(I may have been one of those 2-3 candidate users, but I actually
just download HPC Pack.)
Back to the point of why OpenMPI might be desirable:
On Dec 18, 2012, at 10:06 AM, JR Cary wrote:
> So, IMO, OpenMPI would have to turn to a different
> group for support. E.g., Microsoft compatible HPC
> application vendors. And for that one would need a
> compelling case of being better in, e.g., performance.
I doubt that a performance case
On 12/18/12 6:29 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
This brings up the point again, however, of Windows support.
Open MPI recently lost its only Windows developer (he moved on to non-HPC
things). This has been discussed on the lists a few times (I honestly don't
remember if it was this users list or
Thanks for all the patches.
This brings up the point again, however, of Windows support.
Open MPI recently lost its only Windows developer (he moved on to non-HPC
things). This has been discussed on the lists a few times (I honestly don't
remember if it was this users list or the devel list),
10 matches
Mail list logo
