On Jan 4, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Tom Rosmond wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply. I ran my tests with a hostfile with
cedar.reachone.com slots=4
I clearly misunderstood the role of the 'slots' parameter, because
when I removed it, OPENMPI slightly outperformed LAM, which I
assume it should. Thanks f
Thanks for the quick reply. I ran my tests with a hostfile with
cedar.reachone.com slots=4
I clearly misunderstood the role of the 'slots' parameter, because
when I removed it, OPENMPI slightly outperformed LAM, which I
assume it should. Thanks for the help.
Tom
Brian Barrett wrote:
On Jan
Hi Tom,
users-requ...@open-mpi.org wrote:
I am pretty sure that LAM exploits the fact that the virtual processors
are all
sharing the same memory, so communication is via memory and/or the PCI bus
of the system, while my OPENMPI configuration doesn't exploit this. Is this
a reasonable diagnos
On Jan 4, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Tom Rosmond wrote:
I have been using LAM-MPI for many years on PC/Linux systems and
have been quite pleased with its performance. However, at the
urging of the
LAM-MPI website, I have decided to switch to OPENMPI. For much of my
preliminary testing I work on a si
Hello:
I have been using LAM-MPI for many years on PC/Linux systems and
have been quite pleased with its performance. However, at the urging of the
LAM-MPI website, I have decided to switch to OPENMPI. For much of my
preliminary testing I work on a single processor workstation (see the
attache
