Re: [OMPI users] Problems with mpirun

On Friday 03 September 2010, Alexander Kalinin wrote: > Hello! > > I have a problem to run mpi program. My command line is: > $ mpirun -np 1 ./ksurf > > But I got an error: > [0,0,0] mca_oob_tcp_init: invalid address '' returned for selected oob > interfaces. > [0,0,0] ORTE_ERROR_LOG: Error in

Re: [OMPI users] Low Open MPI performance on InfiniBand and shared memory?

On Friday 09 July 2010, Andreas Schäfer wrote: > Thanks, those were good suggestions. > > On 11:53 Fri 09 Jul , Peter Kjellstrom wrote: > > On an E5520 (nehalem) node I get ~5 GB/s ping-pong for >64K sizes. > > I just tried a Core i7 system which maxes at 6550 MB/s

Re: [OMPI users] Low Open MPI performance on InfiniBand and shared memory?

On Friday 09 July 2010, Andreas Schäfer wrote: > Hi, > > I'm evaluating Open MPI 1.4.2 on one of our BladeCenters and I'm > getting via InfiniBand about 1550 MB/s and via shared memory about > 1770 for the PingPong benchmark in Intel's MPI benchmark. (That > benchmark is just an example, I'm

Re: [OMPI users] (no subject)

On Friday 11 June 2010, asmae.elbahlo...@mpsa.com wrote: > Hello > i have a problem with parFoam, when i type in the terminal parafoam, it > lauches nothing but in the terminal i have : This is the OpenMPI mailling list, not OpenFoam. I suggest you contact the team behind OpenFoam. I also

Re: [OMPI users] Trouble building openmpi 1.2.8 with intel compilers 10.0.23

On Monday 05 April 2010, Steve Swanekamp (L3-Titan Contractor) wrote: > When I try to run the configure utility I get the message that the c++ > compiler can not compile simple c programs. Any ideas? (at least some) Intel compilers need the gcc-c++ distribution package. Have you tested icpc

Re: [OMPI users] mpi error?

On Thursday 11 March 2010, Matthew MacManes wrote: > Can anybody tell me if this is an error associated with openmpi, versus an > issue with the program I am running (MRBAYES, > https://sourceforge.net/projects/mrbayes/) > > We are trying to run a large simulated dataset using 1,000,000 bases >

Re: [OMPI users] Problems compiling OpenMPI 1.4 with PGI 9.0-3

On Wednesday 06 January 2010, Tim Miller wrote: > Hi All, > > I am trying to compile OpenMPI 1.4 with PGI 9.0-3 and am getting the > following error in configure: > > checking for functional offsetof macro... no > configure: WARNING: Your compiler does not support offsetof macro > configure:

Re: [OMPI users] (no subject)

On Friday 30 October 2009, Konstantinos Angelopoulos wrote: > good part of the day, > > I am trying to run a parallel program (that used to run in a cluster) in my > double core pc. Could openmpi simulate the distribution of the parallel > jobs to my 2 processors If your program is an MPI

Re: [OMPI users] Openmpi setup with intel compiler.

On Wednesday 30 September 2009, vighn...@aero.iitb.ac.in wrote: ... > during > configuring with Intel 9.0 compiler the installation gives following > error. > > [root@test_node openmpi-1.3.3]# make all install ... > make[3]: Entering directory `/tmp/openmpi-1.3.3/orte' > test -z

Re: [OMPI users] profile the performance of a MPI code: how much traffic is being generated?

On Tuesday 29 September 2009, Rahul Nabar wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Eugene Loh wrote: > > to know.  It sounds like you want to be able to watch some % utilization > > of a hardware interface as the program is running.  I *think* these tools > > (the ones on

Re: [OMPI users] very bad parallel scaling of vasp using openmpi

On Wednesday 23 September 2009, 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

Re: [OMPI users] Help: Infiniband interface hang

Could you guys please trim your e-mails. No one wants to scroll by 100K-200K old context to see the update (not to mention wasting storage space for people.) /Peter signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [OMPI users] scaling problem with openmpi

On Wednesday 20 May 2009, Roman Martonak wrote: > I tried to run with the first dynamic rules file that Pavel proposed > and it works, the time per one MD step on 48 cores decreased from 2.8 > s to 1.8 s as expected. It was clearly the basic linear algorithm that > was causing the problem. I will

Re: [OMPI users] scaling problem with openmpi

On Wednesday 20 May 2009, Pavel Shamis (Pasha) wrote: > > Disabling basic_linear seems like a good idea but your config file sets > > the cut-off at 128 Bytes for 64-ranks (the field you set to 8192 seems to > > result in a message size of that value divided by the number of ranks). > > > > In my

Re: [OMPI users] scaling problem with openmpi

On Wednesday 20 May 2009, Pavel Shamis (Pasha) wrote: > > With the file Pavel has provided things have changed to the following. > > (maybe someone can confirm) > > > > If message size < 8192 > > bruck > > else > > pairwise > > end > > You are right here. Target of my conf file is disable

Re: [OMPI users] scaling problem with openmpi

On Wednesday 20 May 2009, Rolf Vandevaart wrote: ... > If I am understanding what is happening, it looks like the original > MPI_Alltoall made use of three algorithms. (You can look in > coll_tuned_decision_fixed.c) > > If message size < 200 or communicator size > 12 >bruck > else if message

Re: [OMPI users] scaling problem with openmpi

On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Roman Martonak wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Peter Kjellstrom <c...@nsc.liu.se> wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Roman Martonak wrote: > > ... > >> openmpi-1.3.2                           time per one MD step is 3.66 s > &

Re: [OMPI users] Slightly off topic: Ethernet and InfiniBand speed evolution

On Thursday 07 May 2009, nee...@crlindia.com wrote: > Thanks Pasha for sharing IB Roadmaps with us. But i am more interested in > to find out latency figures since they often matter more than bit rate. > > Could there be rough if not accurate the latency figures being targeted in > IB World? The

Re: [OMPI users] Factor of 10 loss in performance with 1.3.x

On Tuesday 07 April 2009, Eugene Loh wrote: > Iain Bason wrote: > > But maybe Steve should try 1.3.2 instead? Does that have your > > improvements in it? > > 1.3.2 has the single-queue implementation and automatic sizing of the sm > mmap file, both intended to fix problems at large np. At np=2,

Re: [OMPI users] MPI can not open file?

On Tuesday 07 April 2009, Bernhard Knapp wrote: > Hi > > I am trying to get a parallel job of the gromacs software started. MPI > seems to boot fine but unfortunately it seems not to be able to open a > specified file although it is definitly in the directory where the job > is started. Do all

Re: [OMPI users] Heterogeneous OpenFabrics hardware

On Tuesday 27 January 2009, Jeff Squyres wrote: > It is worth clarifying a point in this discussion that I neglected to > mention in my initial post: although Open MPI may not work *by > default* with heterogeneous HCAs/RNICs, it is quite possible/likely > that if you manually configure Open MPI

[OMPI users] MPI_Gather bug with reproducer code attached

Problem description: Elements from all ranks are gathered correctly except for the element belonging to the root/target rank of the gather operation when using certain custom MPI-datatypes (see reproducer code). The bug can be toggled by commenting/uncommenting line 11 in the .F90-file. Even

Re: [OMPI users] SLURM vs. Torque? [OT]

On Monday 22 October 2007, Bill Johnstone wrote: > Hello All. > > We are starting to need resource/scheduling management for our small > cluster, and I was wondering if any of you could provide comments on > what you think about Torque vs. SLURM? On the basis of the appearance > of active

Re: [OMPI users] Performance tuning: focus on latency

On Wednesday 25 July 2007, Jeff Squyres wrote: > On Jul 25, 2007, at 7:45 AM, Biagio Cosenza wrote: > > Jeff, I did what you suggested > > > > However no noticeable changes seem to happen. Same peaks and same > > latency times. > > Ok. This suggests that Nagle may not be the issue here. My guess

Re: [OMPI users] IB bandwidth vs. kernels

On Thursday 18 January 2007 13:08, Scott Atchley wrote: ... > The best uni-directional performance I have heard of for PCIe 8x IB > DDR is ~1,400 MB/s (11.2 Gb/s) This is on par with what I have seen. > with Lustre, which is about 55% of the > theoretical 20 Gb/s advertised speed. I think this

Re: [OMPI users] IB bandwidth vs. kernels

On Thursday 18 January 2007 09:52, Robin Humble wrote: ... > is ~10Gbit the best I can expect from 4x DDR IB with MPI? > some docs @HP suggest up to 16Gbit (data rate) should be possible, and > I've heard that 13 or 14 has been achieved before. but those might be > verbs numbers, or maybe

Re: [OMPI users] OpenMPI on HPUX?

On Tuesday 16 January 2007 15:37, Brian W. Barrett wrote: > Open MPI will not run on PA-RISC processors. HPUX runs on IA-64 too. /Peter pgpdAr7FqFgzB.pgp Description: PGP signature