> One of the differences among MPI implementations is the default placement of
> processes within the node. E.g., should processes by default be collocated
> on cores of the same socket or on cores of different sockets? I don't know
> if that issue is applicable here (that is, HP MPI vs Open MPI
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Eugene Loh wrote:
> Also, I'm puzzled why you should see better results by changing
> btl_sm_eager_limit. That shouldn't change long-message bandwidth, but only
> the message size at which one transitions from short to long messages. If
> anything, tweaking btl_sm
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Eugene Loh wrote:
>>Is this behavior expected? Are there any tunables to get the OpenMPI
>>sockets up near HP-MPI?
>
> First, I want to understand the configuration. It's just a single node. No
> interconnect (InfiniBand or Ethernet or anything). Right?
Yes, th
Just a couple of data points:
1. so we don't confuse folks, there is no legal thing about a space in
OpenMPI. Heck, most of us developers drop the space in our
discussions. It was put in there to avoid confusion with OpenMP. While
the more marketing oriented worry about it, the rest of the
I was away on vacation for two weeks and therefore missed most of this
thread, but I'm quite interested.
Michael Di Domenico wrote:
>I'm not sure I understand what's actually happened here. I'm running
>IMB on an HP superdome, just comparing the PingPong benchmark
>
>HP-MPI v2.3
>Max ~ 700-800
So pushing this along a little more
running with openmpi-1.3 svn rev 20295
mpirun -np 2
-mca btl sm,self
-mca mpi_paffinity_alone 1
-mca mpi_leave_pinned 1
-mca btl_sm_eager_limit 8192
$PWD/IMB-MPI1 pingpong
Yields ~390MB/sec
So we're getting there, but still only about half speed
On
Here's an interesting data point. I installed the RHEL rpm version of
OpenMPI 1.2.7-6 for ia64
mpirun -np 2 -mca btl self,sm -mca mpi_paffinity_alone 1 -mca
mpi_leave_pinned 1 $PWD/IMB-MPI1 pingpong
With v1.3 and -mca btl self,sm i get ~150MB/sec
With v1.3 and -mca btl self,tcp i get ~550MB/sec
Michael Di Domenico wrote:
mpi_leave_pinned didn't help still at ~145MB/sec
btl_sm_eager_limit from 4096 to 8192 pushes me upto ~212MB/sec, but
pushing it past that doesn't change it anymore
Are there any intelligent programs that can go through and test all
the different permutations of tunable
mpi_leave_pinned didn't help still at ~145MB/sec
btl_sm_eager_limit from 4096 to 8192 pushes me upto ~212MB/sec, but
pushing it past that doesn't change it anymore
Are there any intelligent programs that can go through and test all
the different permutations of tunables for openmpi? Outside of me
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:08 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
> The leave pinned will not help in this context. It can only help for devices
> capable of real RMA operations and that require pinned memory, which
> unfortunately is not the case for TCP. What is [really] strange about your
> results is tha
The leave pinned will not help in this context. It can only help for
devices capable of real RMA operations and that require pinned memory,
which unfortunately is not the case for TCP. What is [really] strange
about your results is that you get a 4 times better bandwidth over TCP
than over
Hi,
--mca mpi_leave_pinned 1
might help. Take a look at the FAQ for various tuning parameters.
Michael Di Domenico wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what's actually happened here. I'm running
IMB on an HP superdome, just comparing the PingPong benchmark
HP-MPI v2.3
Max ~ 700-800MB/sec
OpenM
12 matches
Mail list logo
