Ralph,
i was able to test the generic module and it seems to be working.
one question tho, the function orte_ess_generic_component_query in
"orte/mca/ess/generic/ess_generic_component.c" calls getenv with the
argument "OMPI_MCA_enc", which seems to cause the module to fail to
load. shouldnt it be "OMPI_MCA_ess" ?
.....
/* only pick us if directed to do so */
if (NULL != (pick = getenv("OMPI_MCA_env")) &&
0 == strcmp(pick, "generic")) {
*priority = 1000;
*module = (mca_base_module_t *)&orte_ess_generic_module;
...
p.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> us...@open-mpi.org
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>
