On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Ryan Thompson wrote:
> Hi Anthony,
>
> I made some progress, however, I still get the same trace_API.h
> error, although I'm not certain if it is important.
trace_sample is a sample TRACE-API implementation for SLOG2, e.g. for
people who write their own trace and to generate
Hi Anthony,
I made some progress, however, I still get the same trace_API.h
error, although I'm not certain if it is important.
It appears that the binaries are built regardless and the
installcheck-all appears to pass on all tests.
As requested, I've attached a gzip'd tarball of my confi
On Dec 6, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Brock Palen wrote:
I wonder if we can narrow this down a bit to perhaps a PML protocol
issue.
Start by disabling RDMA by using:
-mca btl_gm_flags 1
On the other-hand, with OB1 using btl_gm_flags 1 fixed the error
problem with OMPI! Which is a great first step.
I wonder if we can narrow this down a bit to perhaps a PML protocol
issue.
Start by disabling RDMA by using:
-mca btl_gm_flags 1
This helps some, I at least now see the start up of HPL, but i never
get a single pass, output ends at:
- Computational tests pass if scaled residuals are less
The problem is that, when running HPL, he sees failed residuals. When
running HPL under MPICH-GM, he does not.
I have tried running HPCC (HPL plus other benchmarks) using OMPI with
GM on 32-bit Xeons and 64-bit Opterons. I do not see any failed
residuals. I am trying to get access to a couple of
Is there any gotchas on using the dr pml?
also if the dr pml is finding errors, and is resending data, can i
have it tell me when that happens? Like a verbose mode?
Unfortunately you will need to update the source and recompile, try:
Updating this file: topdir/ompi/mca/pml/dr/pml_dr.h:245:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 7:12 PM, Aaron McDonough wrote:
We have a mix of i686 and x86_64 SLES9 nodes, some with IB interfaces
and some without. Ideally, we want users to be able to run the same
binary on any node. Can I build a common OpenMPI for both platforms
that
will work with either 32 or 64 b
On Dec 6, 2006, at 2:05 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Actually I was wondering why there is a facility for having
multiple
LIDs for the same port. This led me to the entire series of
questions.
It is still not very clear to, as to what is the advantage of
assigning multiple LIDs to the same p
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 12:14:35PM +0530, Chevchenkovic Chevchenkovic wrote:
> Hi,
> Actually I was wondering why there is a facility for having multiple
> LIDs for the same port. This led me to the entire series of questions.
>It is still not very clear to, as to what is the advantage of
> a
Hi,
Actually I was wondering why there is a facility for having multiple
LIDs for the same port. This led me to the entire series of questions.
It is still not very clear to, as to what is the advantage of
assigning multiple LIDs to the same port. Does it give some
performance advantages?
-Chev
10 matches
Mail list logo
