George --
What do you say about committing your patch?
On Aug 31, 2007, at 7:06 AM, Simon Hammond wrote:
On 31/08/2007, Gleb Natapov <gl...@voltaire.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:49:10AM +0200, Sven Stork wrote:
On Friday 31 August 2007 09:07, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 08:04:00AM +0100, Simon Hammond wrote:
On 31/08/2007, Lev Givon <l...@columbia.edu> wrote:
Received from George Bosilca on Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at
07:42:52PM EDT:
I have a patch for this, but I never felt a real need for it,
so I
never push it in the trunk. I'm not completely convinced that
we need
it, except in some really strange situations (read grid). Why
do you
need a port range ? For avoiding firewalls ?
We are planning on using OpenMPI as the basis for running MPI jobs
across a series of workstations overnight. The workstations are
locked
down so that only a small number of ports are available for
use. If we
try to use anything else its disaster.
Unfortunately this is really an organizational policy above
anything
else and its very difficult to get it to change.
As workaround you can write application that will bind to all
ports that
are not allowed to be used by MPI before running MPI job.
Another option could be (if that match your policy) to limit the
dynamic port
range that is used by your OS. By this all application (unless
they ask for
an specific port) will get ports in this limited port range. If
so the
following link might be interesting for you:
http://www.ncftp.com/ncftpd/doc/misc/ephemeral_ports.html
I was sure it is possible to set a port range on Linux, but didn't
know how.
This is much better workaround.
Thanks guys, I'll give this a try.
Si Hammond
--
Gleb.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
us...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
us...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
