I can't replicate it, it is working fine here :(
Can you please try xmvapich again with -D option and cut&paste the
output?
Thanks,
Lucho
On Oct 6, 2008, at 2:51 PM, Daniel Gruner wrote:
I just compiled mpich2-1.1.0a1, and tested it, with the same result as
with mvapich. Again I had to do the configure with
--with-device=ch3:sock, since otherwise the runtime complains that it
can't allocate shared memory or some such thing. When I run a single
process using xmvapich it completes fine. However when running two or
more it hangs. This is not surprising as it should be the same as
mvapich when running over regular TCP/IP on GigE rather than a special
interconnect.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] examples]# ./hellow
Hello world from process 0 of 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] examples]# xmvapich -a ./hellow
Hello world from process 1 of 2
Hello world from process 0 of 2
^C
[EMAIL PROTECTED] examples]# xmvapich n0000 ./hellow
Hello world from process 0 of 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] examples]# xmvapich n0001 ./hellow
Hello world from process 0 of 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] examples]# xmvapich n0000,n0001 ./hellow
Hello world from process 1 of 2
Hello world from process 0 of 2
^C
Daniel
On 10/6/08, Latchesar Ionkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just compiled mpich2-1.1.0a1 and tried running hellow, everything
looks
fine:
$ xmvapich m1,m2
~/work/mpich2-1.1.0a1/build/examples/hellow
Hello world from process 0 of 2
Hello world from process 1 of 2
$
I didn't set any special parameters when compiling, just ./configure.
Thanks,
Lucho
On Oct 3, 2008, at 9:05 AM, Daniel Gruner wrote:
Well, I just did the same, but with NO success... The processes are
apparently started, run at the beginning, but then they hang and do
not finalize. For example, running the "hellow" example from the
mvapich2 distribution:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] examples]# cat hellow.c
/* -*- Mode: C; c-basic-offset:4 ; -*- */
/*
* (C) 2001 by Argonne National Laboratory.
* See COPYRIGHT in top-level directory.
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include "mpi.h"
int main( int argc, char *argv[] )
{
int rank;
int size;
MPI_Init( 0, 0 );
MPI_Comm_rank(MPI_COMM_WORLD, &rank);
MPI_Comm_size(MPI_COMM_WORLD, &size);
printf( "Hello world from process %d of %d\n", rank, size );
MPI_Finalize();
return 0;
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] examples]# make hellow
../bin/mpicc -I../src/include -I../src/include -c hellow.c
../bin/mpicc -o hellow hellow.o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] examples]# ./hellow
Hello world from process 0 of 1
(this was fine, just running on the master). Running on the two
nodes
requires that the xmvapich process be killed (ctrl-C):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] examples]# xmvapich -ap ./hellow
n0000: Hello world from process 0 of 2
n0001: Hello world from process 1 of 2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] examples]#
I have tried other codes, both in C and Fortran, with the same
behaviour. I don't know if the issue is with xmvapich or with
mvapich2. Communication is just GigE.
Daniel
On 9/30/08, Abhishek Kulkarni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just gave this a quick try, and xmvapich seems to run MPI apps
compiled
with mpich2 without any issues.
$ xmvapich -a ./mpihello
blender: Hello World from process 0 of 1
eregion: Hello World from process 0 of 1
Hope that helps,
-- Abhishek
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 17:02 +0200, Stefan Boresch wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply!
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 07:34:37AM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:57 AM, stefan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
the state of xcpu support with MPI libraries -- either of the
common
free ones
is fine (e.g., openmpi, mpich2)
there is now support for mpich2. openmpi is not supported as
openmpi
is (once again) in flux. it has been supported numerous times and
has
changed out from under us numerous times. I no longer use
openmpi if
I
have a working mvapich or mpich available.
I am slightly confused. I guess I had inferred the openmpi
issues from
the various mailing lists. But I just looked at the latest mpich2
prerelease and found no mentioning of (s)xcpu(2). I thought that
some
patches/support on the side of the mpi library are necessary (as,
e.g.,
openmpi provides for bproc ...) Or am I completely
misunderstanding
something here, and this is somehow handled by xcpu itself ...
I guess there is some difference between
xrx 192.168.19.2 /bin/date
and
xrx 192.168.19.2 <pathto>/mpiexec ...
and the latter seems too magic to me to run out of the box (it
sure
would be nice though ...)
Sorry for making myself a nuisance -- thanks,
Stefan Boresch
