Galen Shipman wrote:
>Hi Jean,
>
>You probably are not seeing overhead costs so much as you are seeing
>the difference between using send/recv for small messages, which Open
>MPI uses, and RDMA for small messages. If you are comparing against
>another implementation that uses RDMA for small messa
On Feb 9, 2006, at 6:50 PM, James Conway wrote:
I couldn't find any information on firewall ports to open up for
using OpenMPI. I have compiled and successfully run simple commands
(eg mpirun with "uname -n") on the localhost, but including remote
hosts caused a hang. Statements in the remote .c
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 16:37 -0700, Brightwell, Ronald wrote:
> I apologize if it seems like I'm picking on you.
No offense taken.
> I'm hypersensitive to
> people trying to make judgements based on micro-benchmark performance.
> I've been trying to make an argument that two-node ping-pong laten
I couldn't find any information on firewall ports to open up for
using OpenMPI. I have compiled and successfully run simple commands
(eg mpirun with "uname -n") on the localhost, but including remote
hosts caused a hang. Statements in the remote .cshrc to echo would be
returned, but nothing
>
> No, I assumed it based on comparisions between doing and not doing small
> msg rdma at various scales, from a paper Galen pointed out to me.
> http://www.cs.unm.edu/~treport/tr/05-10/Infiniband.pdf
>
Actually, I wasn't so much concerned with how you jumped to your conclusion.
I just wanted t
Hi,
I am trying to profile an Open MPI job using the mpiP profiling library.
Running the job without the library completes successfully. When I link the
profiling library into the executable, the job fails to run. I am able to
build the job with mpiP, but the execution fails. Please see the attach
On Feb 9, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Jean-Christophe Hugly wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:05 -0700, Ron Brightwell wrote:
[...]
From an adoption perspective, though, the ability to shine in
micro-benchmarks is important, even if it means using an ad-hoc
tuning.
There is some justification for it af
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:05 -0700, Ron Brightwell wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > >From an adoption perspective, though, the ability to shine in
> > micro-benchmarks is important, even if it means using an ad-hoc tuning.
> > There is some justification for it after all. There are small clusters
> > out t
When do you plan on having the small-msg rdma option available ?
I would expect this in the very near future, we will be discussing
schedules next week.
Thanks,
Galen
J-C
--
Jean-Christophe Hugly
PANTA
> [...]
>
> >From an adoption perspective, though, the ability to shine in
> micro-benchmarks is important, even if it means using an ad-hoc tuning.
> There is some justification for it after all. There are small clusters
> out there (many more than big ones, in fact) so taking maximum advantage
>
>
> > So far, the best latency I got from ompi is 5.24 us, and the best I
> > got from mvapich is 3.15.
> > I am perfectly ready to accept that ompi scales better and that may be
> > more important (except to the marketing dept :-) ), but I do not
> > understand your explanation based on small-
I would recommend reading the following tech report, it should shed
some light to how these things work :
http://www.cs.unm.edu/research/search_technical_reports_by_keyword/?
string=infiniband
1 - It does not seem that mvapich does RDMA for small messages. It will
do RDMA for any message
12 matches
Mail list logo
