On 8 May 2014 16:59, Rob Latham wrote:
>
> Richard: may I add this test case to ROMIO's test suite? I'm always on
> the hunt for small self-contained tests.
>
Please do. I'm glad it's being so useful - it seems to be hitting a
surprising amount of bugs of different origins.
It might be an idea
On 7 May 2014 16:25, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
>
> "Periodically".
>
> Hopefully, the fix will be small and we can just pull that one fix down to
> OMPI.
Okay, thanks for letting me know Jeff.
Richard
On 7 May 2014 17:48, Rob Latham wrote:
>
> Looks like I fixed that late last year. A slew of ">31 bit transfers"
> fixes went into the MPICH-3.1 release. Slurping those changes, which are
> individually small (using some _x versions of type-inquiry routines here,
> some MPI_Count promotions the
.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2012/07/19762.php).
Have those been pulled into OpenMPI? I've been staying clear of ROMIO for a
while (in favour of OMPIO), to avoid those issues.
Thanks,
Richard
On 7 May 2014 12:36, Rob Latham wrote:
>
>
> On 05/05/2014 09:20 PM, Richard Sha
Hello,
I think I've come across a bug when using ROMIO to read in a 2D distributed
array. I've attached a test case to this email.
In the testcase I first initialise an array of 25 doubles (which will be a
5x5 grid), then I create a datatype representing a 5x5 matrix distributed
in 3x3 blocks ove
this case, however, I
> suspect it didn't happen because we didn't hear back that the patch fixed
> the problem and was therefore correct :-/
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> Okay. Thanks for having a look Ralph!
>
> For future reference, i
it can be applied to 1.8.1. These
> things don't automatically go across - it requires that someone file a
> request to move it - and I think this commit came into the trunk after we
> branched for the 1.7 series.
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
's still in the SVN
trunk, but hasn't made it into any of the intervening releases (neither
stables 1.6.2-, 1.8; nor feature releases 1.7 onwards). Will this end up in
the 1.9 series?
Richard
On 24 July 2012 19:02, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Thanks George, I'm glad it wasn't
Hi Rayson,
Just seen this.
In the end we've worked around it, by creating successive views of the file
that are all else than 2GB and then offsetting them to eventually read in
everything. It's a bit of a pain to keep track of, but it works at the moment.
I was intending on following your hin
On Tuesday, 7 August, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Rob Latham wrote:
> Hi. Known problem in the ROMIO MPI-IO implementation (which OpenMPI
> uses). Been on my list of "things to fix" for a while.
Ok, thanks. I'm glad it's not just us.
Is there a timescale for this being fixed? Because if it's a long term t
Thanks George, I'm glad it wasn't just me being crazy. I'll try and test that
one soon.
Cheers,
Richard
On Tuesday, 24 July, 2012 at 6:28 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> Richard,
>
> Thanks for identifying this issue and for the short example. I can confirm
> your original understanding was rig
ank 0, size=40, extent=80, lb=0
Rank 1, size=40, extent=88, lb=0
Can anyone else confirm this?
Thanks
Richard
On Sunday, 15 July, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm getting thoroughly confused trying to work out what is the correct extent
> of a block-cy
Hello,
I'm getting thoroughly confused trying to work out what is the correct extent
of a block-cyclic distributed array type (created with MPI_Type_create_darray),
and I'm hoping someone can clarify it for me.
My expectation is that calling MPI_Get_extent on this type should return the
size o
13 matches
Mail list logo
