Dev trunk looks okay right now - I think you'll be fine using it. My new component -might- work with 1.5, but probably not with 1.4. I haven't checked either of them.
Anything at r23478 or above will have the new module. Let me know how it works for you. I haven't tested it myself, but am pretty sure it should work. On Jul 22, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Philippe wrote: > Ralph, > > Thank you so much!! > > I'll give it a try and let you know. > > I know it's a tough question, but how stable is the dev trunk? Can I > just grab the latest and run, or am I better off taking your changes > and copy them back in a stable release? (if so, which one? 1.4? 1.5?) > > p. > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: >> It was easier for me to just construct this module than to explain how to do >> so :-) >> >> I will commit it this evening (couple of hours from now) as that is our >> standard practice. You'll need to use the developer's trunk, though, to use >> it. >> >> Here are the envars you'll need to provide: >> >> Each process needs to get the same following values: >> >> * OMPI_MCA_ess=generic >> * OMPI_MCA_orte_num_procs=<number of MPI procs> >> * OMPI_MCA_orte_nodes=<a comma-separated list of nodenames where MPI procs >> reside> >> * OMPI_MCA_orte_ppn=<number of procs/node> >> >> Note that I have assumed this last value is a constant for simplicity. If >> that isn't the case, let me know - you could instead provide it as a >> comma-separated list of values with an entry for each node. >> >> In addition, you need to provide the following value that will be unique to >> each process: >> >> * OMPI_MCA_orte_rank=<MPI rank> >> >> Finally, you have to provide a range of static TCP ports for use by the >> processes. Pick any range that you know will be available across all the >> nodes. You then need to ensure that each process sees the following envar: >> >> * OMPI_MCA_oob_tcp_static_ports=6000-6010 <== obviously, replace this with >> your range >> >> You will need a port range that is at least equal to the ppn for the job >> (each proc on a node will take one of the provided ports). >> >> That should do it. I compute everything else I need from those values. >> >> Does that work for you? >> Ralph >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Philippe wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jul 21, 2010, at 7:44 AM, Philippe wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ralph, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for the late reply -- I was away on vacation. >>>> >>>> no problem at all! >>>> >>>>> >>>>> regarding your earlier question about how many processes where >>>>> involved when the memory was entirely allocated, it was only two, a >>>>> sender and a receiver. I'm still trying to pinpoint what can be >>>>> different between the standalone case and the "integrated" case. I >>>>> will try to find out what part of the code is allocating memory in a >>>>> loop. >>>> >>>> hmmm....that sounds like a bug in your program. let me know what you find >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: >>>>>> Well, I finally managed to make this work without the required >>>>>> ompi-server rendezvous point. The fix is only in the devel trunk right >>>>>> now - I'll have to ask the release managers for 1.5 and 1.4 if they want >>>>>> it ported to those series. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> great -- i'll give it a try >>>>> >>>>>> On the notion of integrating OMPI to your launch environment: remember >>>>>> that we don't necessarily require that you use mpiexec for that purpose. >>>>>> If your launch environment provides just a little info in the >>>>>> environment of the launched procs, we can usually devise a method that >>>>>> allows the procs to perform an MPI_Init as a single job without all this >>>>>> work you are doing. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm working on creating operators using MPI for the IBM product >>>>> "InfoSphere Streams". It has its own launching mechanism to start the >>>>> processes. However I can pass some information to the processes that >>>>> belong to the same job (Streams job -- which should neatly map to MPI >>>>> job). >>>>> >>>>>> Only difference is that your procs will all block in MPI_Init until they >>>>>> -all- have executed that function. If that isn't a problem, this would >>>>>> be a much more scalable and reliable method than doing it thru massive >>>>>> calls to MPI_Port_connect. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> in the general case, that would be a problem, but for my prototype, >>>>> this is acceptable. >>>>> >>>>> In general, each process is composed of operators, some may be MPI >>>>> related and some may not. But in my case, I know ahead of time which >>>>> processes will be part of the MPI job, so I can easily deal with the >>>>> fact that they would block on MPI_init (actually -- MPI_thread_init >>>>> since its using a lot of threads). >>>> >>>> We have talked in the past about creating a non-blocking MPI_Init as an >>>> extension to the standard. It would lock you to Open MPI, though... >>>> >>>> Regardless, at some point you would have to know how many processes are >>>> going to be part of the job so you can know when MPI_Init is complete. I >>>> would think you would require that info for the singleton wireup anyway - >>>> yes? Otherwise, how would you know when to quit running connect-accept? >>>> >>> >>> the short answer is yes... although, the longer answer is a bit more >>> complicated. currently I do know the number of connect I need to do on >>> a per-port basis. a job can contains an arbitrary number of MPI >>> processes, each opening one or more ports. so i know the count port by >>> ports but I dont need to worry about how many MPI processes there is >>> globally. to make things a bit more complicated, each MPI operator can >>> be "fused" with other operators to make a process. each fused operator >>> may or may not require MPI. the bottom line is, to get the total >>> number of processes to calculate rank&size, I need to reverse engineer >>> the fusing that the compiler may do. >>> >>> but that's ok, I'm willing to do that for our prototype :-) >>> >>>>> >>>>> Is there a documentation or example I can use to see what information >>>>> I can pass to the processes to enable that? Is it just environment >>>>> variables? >>>> >>>> No real documentation - a lack I should probably fill. At the moment, we >>>> don't have a "generic" module for standalone launch, but I can create one >>>> as it is pretty trivial. I would then need you to pass each process envars >>>> telling it the total number of processes in the MPI job, its rank within >>>> that job, and a file where some rendezvous process (can be rank=0) has >>>> provided that port string. Armed with that info, I can wireup the job. >>>> >>>> Won't be as scalable as an mpirun-initiated startup, but will be much >>>> better than doing it from singletons. >>> >>> that would be great. I can definitely pass environment variables to >>> each process. >>> >>>> >>>> Or if you prefer, we could setup an "infosphere" module that we could >>>> customize for this system. Main thing here would be to provide us with >>>> some kind of regex (or access to a file containing the info) that >>>> describes the map of rank to node so we can construct the wireup >>>> communication pattern. >>>> >>> >>> i think for our prototype we are fine with the first method. I'd leave >>> the cleaner implementation as a task for the product team ;-) >>> >>> regarding the "generic" module, is that something you can put together >>> quickly? can I help in any way? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> p >>> >>>> Either way would work. The second is more scalable, but I don't know if >>>> you have (or can construct) the map info. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks! >>>>> p. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 18, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Philippe wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ralph, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for investigating. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've applied the two patches you mentioned earlier and ran with the >>>>>>> ompi server. Although i was able to runn our standalone test, when I >>>>>>> integrated the changes to our code, the processes entered a crazy loop >>>>>>> and allocated all the memory available when calling MPI_Port_Connect. >>>>>>> I was not able to identify why it works standalone but not integrated >>>>>>> with our code. If I found why, I'll let your know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> looking forward to your findings. We'll be happy to test any patches >>>>>>> if you have some! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> p. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Okay, I can reproduce this problem. Frankly, I don't think this ever >>>>>>>> worked with OMPI, and I'm not sure how the choice of BTL makes a >>>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The program is crashing in the communicator definition, which involves >>>>>>>> a communication over our internal out-of-band messaging system. That >>>>>>>> system has zero connection to any BTL, so it should crash either way. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regardless, I will play with this a little as time allows. Thanks for >>>>>>>> the reproducer! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Philippe wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm trying to run a test program which consists of a server creating a >>>>>>>>> port using MPI_Open_port and N clients using MPI_Comm_connect to >>>>>>>>> connect to the server. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm able to do so with 1 server and 2 clients, but with 1 server + 3 >>>>>>>>> clients, I get the following error message: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [node003:32274] [[37084,0],0]:route_callback tried routing message >>>>>>>>> from [[37084,1],0] to [[40912,1],0]:102, can't find route >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is only happening with the openib BTL. With tcp BTL it works >>>>>>>>> perfectly fine (ofud also works as a matter of fact...). This has been >>>>>>>>> tested on two completely different clusters, with identical results. >>>>>>>>> In either cases, the IB frabic works normally. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any help would be greatly appreciated! Several people in my team >>>>>>>>> looked at the problem. Google and the mailing list archive did not >>>>>>>>> provide any clue. I believe that from an MPI standpoint, my test >>>>>>>>> program is valid (and it works with TCP, which make me feel better >>>>>>>>> about the sequence of MPI calls) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Philippe. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Background: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I intend to use openMPI to transport data inside a much larger >>>>>>>>> application. Because of that, I cannot used mpiexec. Each process is >>>>>>>>> started by our own "job management" and use a name server to find >>>>>>>>> about each others. Once all the clients are connected, I would like >>>>>>>>> the server to do MPI_Recv to get the data from all the client. I dont >>>>>>>>> care about the order or which client are sending data, as long as I >>>>>>>>> can receive it with on call. Do do that, the clients and the server >>>>>>>>> are going through a series of Comm_accept/Conn_connect/Intercomm_merge >>>>>>>>> so that at the end, all the clients and the server are inside the same >>>>>>>>> intracomm. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steps: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have a sample program that show the issue. I tried to make it as >>>>>>>>> short as possible. It needs to be executed on a shared file system >>>>>>>>> like NFS because the server write the port info to a file that the >>>>>>>>> client will read. To reproduce the issue, the following steps should >>>>>>>>> be performed: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 0. compile the test with "mpicc -o ben12 ben12.c" >>>>>>>>> 1. ssh to the machine that will be the server >>>>>>>>> 2. run ./ben12 3 1 >>>>>>>>> 3. ssh to the machine that will be the client #1 >>>>>>>>> 4. run ./ben12 3 0 >>>>>>>>> 5. repeat step 3-4 for client #2 and #3 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the server accept the connection from client #1 and merge it in a new >>>>>>>>> intracomm. It then accept connection from client #2 and merge it. when >>>>>>>>> the client #3 arrives, the server accept the connection, but that >>>>>>>>> cause client #1 and #2 to die with the error above (see the complete >>>>>>>>> trace in the tarball). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The exact steps are: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - server open port >>>>>>>>> - server does accept >>>>>>>>> - client #1 does connect >>>>>>>>> - server and client #1 do merge >>>>>>>>> - server does accept >>>>>>>>> - client #2 does connect >>>>>>>>> - server, client #1 and client #2 do merge >>>>>>>>> - server does accept >>>>>>>>> - client #3 does connect >>>>>>>>> - server, client #1, client #2 and client #3 do merge >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My infiniband network works normally with other test programs or >>>>>>>>> applications (MPI or others like Verbs). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Info about my setup: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> openMPI version = 1.4.1 (I also tried 1.4.2, nightly snapshot of >>>>>>>>> 1.4.3, nightly snapshot of 1.5 --- all show the same error) >>>>>>>>> config.log in the tarball >>>>>>>>> "ompi_info --all" in the tarball >>>>>>>>> OFED version = 1.3 installed from RHEL 5.3 >>>>>>>>> Distro = RedHat Entreprise Linux 5.3 >>>>>>>>> Kernel = 2.6.18-128.4.1.el5 x86_64 >>>>>>>>> subnet manager = built-in SM from the cisco/topspin switch >>>>>>>>> output of ibv_devinfo included in the tarball (there are no "bad" >>>>>>>>> nodes) >>>>>>>>> "ulimit -l" says "unlimited" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The tarball contains: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - ben12.c: my test program showing the behavior >>>>>>>>> - config.log / config.out / make.out / make-install.out / >>>>>>>>> ifconfig.txt / ibv-devinfo.txt / ompi_info.txt >>>>>>>>> - trace-tcp.txt: output of the server and each client when it works >>>>>>>>> with TCP (I added "btl = tcp,self" in ~/.openmpi/mca-params.conf) >>>>>>>>> - trace-ib.txt: output of the server and each client when it fails >>>>>>>>> with IB (I added "btl = openib,self" in ~/.openmpi/mca-params.conf) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I hope I provided enough info for somebody to reproduce the problem... >>>>>>>>> <ompi-output.tar.bz2>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
