I might be missing something here. Is there a side-effect or performance loss if you don't use the sm btl? Why would it exist if there is a wholly equivalent alternative? What happens to traffic that is intended for another process on the same node?
Thanks -----Original Message----- From: users-boun...@open-mpi.org [mailto:users-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Eugene Loh Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 1:23 PM To: us...@open-mpi.org Subject: Re: [OMPI users] EXTERNAL: Re: How to set up state-less node /tmp for OpenMPI usage Right. Actually "--mca btl ^sm". (Was missing "btl".) On 11/3/2011 11:19 AM, Blosch, Edwin L wrote: > I don't tell OpenMPI what BTLs to use. The default uses sm and puts a session > file on /tmp, which is NFS-mounted and thus not a good choice. > > Are you suggesting something like --mca ^sm? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: users-boun...@open-mpi.org [mailto:users-boun...@open-mpi.org] On > Behalf Of Eugene Loh > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 12:54 PM > To: us...@open-mpi.org > Subject: Re: [OMPI users] EXTERNAL: Re: How to set up state-less node /tmp > for OpenMPI usage > > I've not been following closely. Why must one use shared-memory > communications? How about using other BTLs in a "loopback" fashion? > _______________________________________________ > 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
