On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Terry Dontje wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 01:31 PM, Reuti wrote:
>
> Hi Ralph,
>
> Am 16.11.2010 um 15:40 schrieb Ralph Castain:
>
>
> 2. have SGE bind procs it launches to -all- of those cores. I believe SGE
> does this automatically to constrain the procs to runnin
Ricardo Reis wrote:
and sorry to be such a nuisance...
but any motive for an MPI-IO "wall" between the 2.0 and 2.1 Gb?
Salve Ricardo Reis!
Is this "wall" perhaps the 2GB Linux file size limit on 32-bit systems?
Gus
(1 mpi process)
best,
Ricardo Reis
'Non Serviam'
PhD candidate
and sorry to be such a nuisance...
but any motive for an MPI-IO "wall" between the 2.0 and 2.1 Gb?
(1 mpi process)
best,
Ricardo Reis
'Non Serviam'
PhD candidate @ Lasef
Computational Fluid Dynamics, High Performance Computing, Turbulence
http://www.lasef.ist.utl.pt
Cultural Inst
On my last email...
I forgot to add
It's a 12Gb machine and the file should be around 2.5Gb
I'm using mpirun -np 1
And it writes without problem if I try a file of 250Mb, for instance
so it seems also to be a size related problem
I'm using the 'native' type for writing...
ideas?
Hi all
I have been banging my head on a wall for three days trying to make a
simple fortran mpi-io program work.
I'm using gfortan 4.4, openmpi 1.4.1 (it's a debian box)
I have other codes that work with MPI-IO without any problem but for some
reason I can't grasp this one... doesn't wr
On 11/16/2010 01:31 PM, Reuti wrote:
Hi Ralph,
Am 16.11.2010 um 15:40 schrieb Ralph Castain:
2. have SGE bind procs it launches to -all- of those cores. I believe SGE does
this automatically to constrain the procs to running on only those cores.
This is another "bug/feature" in SGE: it's a m
Hi Ralph,
Am 16.11.2010 um 15:40 schrieb Ralph Castain:
> > 2. have SGE bind procs it launches to -all- of those cores. I believe SGE
> > does this automatically to constrain the procs to running on only those
> > cores.
>
> This is another "bug/feature" in SGE: it's a matter of discussion, wh
On 16 Nov 2010, at 17:25, Terry Dontje wrote:
>>>
>> Sure. Here's the stderr of a job submitted to my cluster with 'qsub -pe
>> mpi 8 -binding linear:2 myScript.com' where myScript.com runs 'mpirun -mca
>> ras_gridengine_verbose 100 --report-bindings ./unterm':
>>
>> [exec4:17384] System ha
Am 16.11.2010 um 17:35 schrieb Terry Dontje:
> On 11/16/2010 10:59 AM, Reuti wrote:
>> Am 16.11.2010 um 15:26 schrieb Terry Dontje:
>>
>>
>
> 1. allocate a specified number of cores on each node to your job
>
>
this is currently the bug in the "slot <=> core" relation in
On 11/16/2010 12:13 PM, Chris Jewell wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 14:26, Terry Dontje wrote:
In the original case of 7 nodes and processes if we do -binding pe linear:2,
and add the -bind-to-core to mpirun I'd actually expect 6 of the nodes
processes bind to one core and the 7th node with 2 proc
On 11/16/2010 12:13 PM, Chris Jewell wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 14:26, Terry Dontje wrote:
In the original case of 7 nodes and processes if we do -binding pe linear:2,
and add the -bind-to-core to mpirun I'd actually expect 6 of the nodes
processes bind to one core and the 7th node with 2 proc
On 16 Nov 2010, at 14:26, Terry Dontje wrote:
>
> In the original case of 7 nodes and processes if we do -binding pe linear:2,
> and add the -bind-to-core to mpirun I'd actually expect 6 of the nodes
> processes bind to one core and the 7th node with 2 processes to have each of
> those proces
hello,I currently have a serial application with a GUI that runs some
calculations.My next step is to use OpenMPI with the help of the Boost.MPI
wrapper library in C++ to parallelize those calculations.There is a set of
static data objects created once at startup or loaded from files.1. In terms
On 11/16/2010 10:59 AM, Reuti wrote:
Am 16.11.2010 um 15:26 schrieb Terry Dontje:
1. allocate a specified number of cores on each node to your job
this is currently the bug in the "slot<=> core" relation in SGE, which has to
be removed, updated or clarified. For now slot and core count are
Am 16.11.2010 um 15:26 schrieb Terry Dontje:
>>>
>>> 1. allocate a specified number of cores on each node to your job
>>>
>> this is currently the bug in the "slot <=> core" relation in SGE, which has
>> to be removed, updated or clarified. For now slot and core count are out of
>> sync AFAIC
Hi Reuti
> > 2. have SGE bind procs it launches to -all- of those cores. I believe SGE
> does this automatically to constrain the procs to running on only those
> cores.
>
> This is another "bug/feature" in SGE: it's a matter of discussion, whether
> the shepherd should get exactly one core (in c
On 11/16/2010 09:08 AM, Reuti wrote:
Hi,
Am 16.11.2010 um 14:07 schrieb Ralph Castain:
Perhaps I'm missing it, but it seems to me that the real problem lies in the interaction
between SGE and OMPI during OMPI's two-phase launch. The verbose output shows that SGE
dutifully allocated the reque
Hi,
Am 16.11.2010 um 14:07 schrieb Ralph Castain:
> Perhaps I'm missing it, but it seems to me that the real problem lies in the
> interaction between SGE and OMPI during OMPI's two-phase launch. The verbose
> output shows that SGE dutifully allocated the requested number of cores on
> each no
Perhaps I'm missing it, but it seems to me that the real problem lies in the
interaction between SGE and OMPI during OMPI's two-phase launch. The verbose
output shows that SGE dutifully allocated the requested number of cores on
each node. However, OMPI launches only one process on each node (the O
We hosted the paper as a courtesy to the author; they aren't part of the Open
MPI core community. You should probably contact the author directly to obtain
the work; it was not submitted upstream to us.
On Nov 13, 2010, at 4:39 AM, Vasiliy G Tolstov wrote:
> Hello. I read very good paper abou
Am 16.11.2010 um 10:26 schrieb Chris Jewell:
> Hi all,
>
>> On 11/15/2010 02:11 PM, Reuti wrote:
>>> Just to give my understanding of the problem:
>> Sorry, I am still trying to grok all your email as what the problem you
>> are trying to solve. So is the issue is trying to have
On 11/16/2010 04:26 AM, Chris Jewell wrote:
Hi all,
On 11/15/2010 02:11 PM, Reuti wrote:
Just to give my understanding of the problem:
Sorry, I am still trying to grok all your email as what the problem you
are trying to solve. So is the issue is trying to have two jobs having
processes on th
Hi all,
> On 11/15/2010 02:11 PM, Reuti wrote:
>> Just to give my understanding of the problem:
>>>
> Sorry, I am still trying to grok all your email as what the problem you
> are trying to solve. So is the issue is trying to have two jobs having
> processes on the same node be ab
23 matches
Mail list logo
