Also the sequential mapper may be of help - allows you to specify the node each
rank is to be place on, one line/rank.
On Mar 1, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Gustavo Correa wrote:
> Hi Claudio
>
> Check 'man mpirun'.
> You will find examples of the
> '-byslot', '-bynode', '-loadbalance', and rankfile
Hi Claudio
Check 'man mpirun'.
You will find examples of the
'-byslot', '-bynode', '-loadbalance', and rankfile options,
which allow some control of how ranks are mapped into processors/cores.
I hope this helps,
Gus Correa
On Mar 1, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Claudio Pastorino wrote:
> Hi, thanks for
Probably yes,
do I have a more systematic way?
Thanks
Claudio
2012/3/1, Jingcha Joba :
> mpirun -np 4 --host node1,node2,node1,node2 ./app
>
> Is this what you want?
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Claudio Pastorino <
> claudio.pastor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> I apologize in adv
Hi, thanks for the answer.
You are right is not the rank what matters but how do I arrange
the physical procs in the cartesian topology. I don't care about the label.
So, how do I achieve that?
Regards,
Claudio
2012/3/1, Ralph Castain :
> Is it really the rank that matters, or where the rank i
mpirun -np 4 --host node1,node2,node1,node2 ./app
Is this what you want?
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Claudio Pastorino <
claudio.pastor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
> I apologize in advance if this is not the right list to post this. I
> am a newcomer and please let me know if I should
Is it really the rank that matters, or where the rank is located? For example,
you could leave the ranks as assigned by the cartesian topology, but then map
them so that ranks 0 and 2 share a node, 1 and 3 share a node, etc.
Is that what you are trying to achieve?
On Mar 1, 2012, at 11:57 AM,
