Well, I finally managed to make this work without the required ompi-server
rendezvous point. The fix is only in the devel trunk right now - I'll have to
ask the release managers for 1.5 and 1.4 if they want it ported to those series.
On the notion of integrating OMPI to your launch environment:
Hi
Does OpenMPI 1.3.2 support MPI 2.2 standard?
I didn't get a clear answer from our sysadmin.
many thanks
anton
--
Anton Shterenlikht
Room 2.6, Queen's Building
Mech Eng Dept
Bristol University
University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK
Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944
Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
On Jul 20, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> Does OpenMPI 1.3.2 support MPI 2.2 standard?
No; it supports MPI-2.1.
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
Grzegorz: something occurred to me. When you start all these processes, how are
you staggering their wireup? Are they flooding us, or are you time-shifting
them a little?
On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Edgar Gabriel wrote:
> Hm, so I am not sure how to approach this. First of all, the test case
Micha --
(re-digging up this really, really old issue because Manuel just pointed me at
the Debian bug for the same issue:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=524553)
Can you confirm that this is still an issue on the latest Open MPI?
If so, it should probably piggyback onto this
Hi,
I have a 3D array, which I need to split into equal n parts, so that each
part would run on a different node. I found the picture in the attachment
from this website (
https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/parallel_comp/#DesignPartitioning) on
the different ways to partition data. I am interest
If there is an already existing implementation of the *Block or Block*
methods that splits the array and sends the individual pieces to
the proper nodes, can you point me to it please?
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Alexandru Blidaru wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a 3D array, which I need to split int
My start script looks almost exactly the same as the one published by
Edgar, ie. the processes are starting one by one with no delay.
2010/7/20 Ralph Castain :
> Grzegorz: something occurred to me. When you start all these processes, how
> are you staggering their wireup? Are they flooding us, or
The reason so many different distributions are described is because
what is optimal depends so much on your own case.
Even if one disregards CYCLIC axes, there are still all those BLOCK
choices you mention. It isn't just a matter of choosing which axes
will be * since * is just a special case
