Jeff Hammond <jeff.scie...@gmail.com> writes: > Just using Intel compilers, OpenMP and MPI. Problem solved :-) > > (I work for Intel and the previous statement should be interpreted as a > joke,
Good! > although Intel OpenMP and MPI interoperate as well as any > implementations of which I am aware.) Better than MPC (not that I've used it)? For what it's worth, you have to worry about the batch resource manager as well as the MPI, and you may need to ensure you're allocated complete nodes. There are known problems with IMPI and SGE specifically, and several times I've made users a lot happier with OMPI/GCC. >> Or pray the MPI Forum and OpenMP combine and I can just look in a >> Standard. :D >> >> > echo "" > $OPENMP_STANDARD # critical step > cat $MPI_STANDARD $OPENMP_STANDARD > $HPC_STANDARD > > More seriously, hybrid programming sucks. Just use MPI-3 and exploit your > coherence domain via MPI_Win_allocate_shared. That way, you won't have to > mix runtimes, suffer mercilessly because of opaque race conditions in > thread-unsafe libraries, or reason about a bolt-on pseudo-language that > replicates features found in ISO languages without a well-defined > interoperability model. Sure, but the trouble is that "everyone knows"" you need the hybrid stuff. Are there good examples of using MPI-3 instead/in comparison? I'd be particularly interested in convincing chemists, though as they don't believe in deadlock and won't measure things, that's probably a lost cause. Not all chemists, of course.
