On Wed, 9 May 2012, Jiri Polach wrote:
You might want to use a smaller number of processors than those made
available by SGE.
Thanks for replying. I can imagine that in some special cases it might be
useful to request N processors from SGE and than use Mwould specify "-np M" for mpirun, of co
Dear all,
is "-np N" parameter needed for mpirun when running jobs under SGE
environment? All examples in
http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=running#run-n1ge-or-sge
show that "-np N" is used, but in my opinion it should be redundant:
mpirun should determine all parameters from SGE environm
On Wed, 9 May 2012, Jiri Polach wrote:
Dear all,
is "-np N" parameter needed for mpirun when running jobs under SGE
environment? All examples in
http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=running#run-n1ge-or-sge
show that "-np N" is used, but in my opinion it should be redundant: mpirun
should
Dear all,
is "-np N" parameter needed for mpirun when running jobs under SGE
environment? All examples in
http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=running#run-n1ge-or-sge
show that "-np N" is used, but in my opinion it should be redundant:
mpirun should determine all parameters from SGE environ
>
> Thanks a lot for the clarification. Do you know if this empirical tests
> has been published somehow/somewhere?
I think it was published in very early OSU/MVAPICH related papers.
Regards,
P.
>
> cheers, Simone
>
>>
>> On May 7, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Simone Pellegrini wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
> Some memory leaks were solved in 1.4.5. that affects openib, see release
> notes.
Yes, with 1.4.4 was worse (it hanged in a previous part of the real code
with communications also involved) but with 1.4.5 it still hangs :( .
Now I see that in the first post there is another mistake :S , the
vers
At 16:19 09/05/2012, you wrote:
> On your code, the only point where it could fail is if one of the
> precalculated message size values is wrongly calculated and executes
> the Recieve where it shouldn't.
Yes, but after the sizes are calculated they don't change and that's why
I find it weird to
To add to what Jeff said, there are also bunch of tools out there, which
can help you in finding the performance bottleneck in your application.
Look for TAU, Scalasca or Paraver to name a few.
You might find them helpful.
--
Joba
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Google aroun
At 15:59 08/05/2012, you wrote:
Yep you are correct. I did the same and it worked. When I have more
than 3 MPI tasks there is lot of overhead on GPU.
But for CPU there is not overhead. All three machines have 4 quad
core processors with 3.8 GB RAM.
Just wondering why there is no degradation
True. I was curious as to what happens when I am time sharing the CPU.
--
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2012, at 3:11 AM, TERRY DONTJE wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 8:40 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
>>
>> On May 7, 2012, at 8:31 PM, Jingcha Joba wrote:
>>
>>> So in the above stated example, end-
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 15:24 +0200, Eduardo Morras wrote:
> Sorry for the delay, and sorry again because in last mail i had the
> wrong taste that it was some kind of homework problem.
Don't worry ;).
I simplified the core of the problem just to make it easier to
understand (at least that was my i
Google around / check textbooks, but you need to check how much time is being
spent by each part of your application.
E.g., if just reading from disk / writing back to disk takes 6.5 seconds, then
the parallel part is trivial.
You should time the parts of your program and see what part(s) is(
On May 9, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Simone Pellegrini wrote:
>> I *believe* that this value came out of IB hardware history. I.e., when we
>> wrote the openib BTL, some empirical testing showed that 12k was a good
>> value.
>
> Thanks a lot for the clarification. Do you know if this empirical tests ha
Sorry for the delay, and sorry again because in last mail i had the
wrong taste that it was some kind of homework problem.
At 17:41 04/05/2012, you wrote:
> The logic of send/recv looks ok. Now, in 5 and 7, recvSize(p2) and
> recvSize(p1) function what value returns?
All the sendSizes and Rec
Hi,
Iam very new to parallel computing and MPI, with intested i have written an
sorting algorithm with MPI. The problem is i tried reduce the execution
time i.e sorting with increase in nodes but the problem is iam unable
drease the time and i was getting like for 4nodes(1Master and 2 slaves) was
g
On Tue 08 May 2012 02:53:28 AM CEST, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
I *believe* that this value came out of IB hardware history. I.e., when we
wrote the openib BTL, some empirical testing showed that 12k was a good value.
Thanks a lot for the clarification. Do you know if this empirical tests
you need latest OMPI 1.6.x and latest MXM (
ftp://bgate.mellanox.com/hpc/mxm/v1.1/mxm_1.1.1067.tar)
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Derek Gerstmann
wrote:
> What versions of OpenMPI and the Mellanox MXM libraries have been tested
> and verified to work?
>
> We are currently trying to build Open
17 matches
Mail list logo
