On 03/26/2014 05:26 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
[Main part is at the bottom]
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 19:28 +0100, Andreas Schäfer wrote:
Ross-
On 09:08 Wed 26 Mar , Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 10:27 +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
On Mar 26, 2014, at 1:31 AM, Andreas Schäfer
[Main part is at the bottom]
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 19:28 +0100, Andreas Schäfer wrote:
> Ross-
>
> On 09:08 Wed 26 Mar , Ross Boylan wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 10:27 +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> > > On Mar 26, 2014, at 1:31 AM, Andreas Schäfer wrote:
...
> > This seems to res
Ross-
On 09:08 Wed 26 Mar , Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 10:27 +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 2014, at 1:31 AM, Andreas Schäfer wrote:
> >
> > >> Even when "idle", MPI processes use all the CPU. I thought I remember
> > >> someone saying that they will be
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 10:27 +, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 1:31 AM, Andreas Schäfer wrote:
>
> >> Even when "idle", MPI processes use all the CPU. I thought I remember
> >> someone saying that they will be low priority, and so not pose much of
> >> an obstacle to oth
On 3/26/2014 6:45 AM, Andreas Schäfer wrote:
On 10:27 Wed 26 Mar , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
Be aware of a few facts, though:
1. There is a fundamental difference between disabling
hyperthreading in the BIOS at power-on time and simply running one
MPI process per core. Disabling HT a
On Mar 26, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Andreas Schäfer wrote:
>> 1. There is a fundamental difference between disabling
>> hyperthreading in the BIOS at power-on time and simply running one
>> MPI process per core. Disabling HT at power-on allocates more
>> hardware resources to the remaining HT that is l
On 10:27 Wed 26 Mar , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> Be aware of a few facts, though:
>
> 1. There is a fundamental difference between disabling
> hyperthreading in the BIOS at power-on time and simply running one
> MPI process per core. Disabling HT at power-on allocates more
> hardware re
On Mar 26, 2014, at 1:31 AM, Andreas Schäfer wrote:
>> Even when "idle", MPI processes use all the CPU. I thought I remember
>> someone saying that they will be low priority, and so not pose much of
>> an obstacle to other uses of the CPU.
>
> well, if they're blocking in an MPI call, then they
Ross-
On 20:30 Tue 25 Mar , Ross Boylan wrote:
> Even when "idle", MPI processes use all the CPU. I thought I remember
> someone saying that they will be low priority, and so not pose much of
> an obstacle to other uses of the CPU.
well, if they're blocking in an MPI call, then they'll be do
