You make a good point, Gus - let me throw the thread open for suggestions on
how to resolve that problem. We've heard similar concerns raised about other
features we've added to OMPI over the years, but I'm not sure of the best way
to communicate such information.
Do we need a better web page,
On Mar 28, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Rob Latham wrote:
> I also found a bad memcopy (i was taking the size of a pointer to a thing
> instead of the size of the thing itself), but that only matters if ROMIO uses
> extended generalized requests. I trust ticket #1159 is still accurate?
>
> https://svn.
On 03/27/2014 06:26 PM, Edgar Gabriel wrote:
I will resubmit a new patch, Rob sent me a pointer to the correct
solution. Its on my to do list for tomorrow/this weekend.
I also found a bad memcopy (i was taking the size of a pointer to a
thing instead of the size of the thing itself), but tha
Good information; thanks.
The short reason for this change in behavior of the affinity options is that
when we first created affinity (wy back in 1.0 days, no one really cared
about it much, and so we just did a first attempt). Gradually over time,
affinity has become much more important.
Thanks again! I tried --display-devel-map and I think it provides a bit too
much info for our needs. However, it is nice to know.
BTW, some interesting behavior in using "--report-bindings --bind-to-core" vs
"--display-map".
* If I use "--report-bindings --bind-to-core" but the MPI tasks o
