Hi Chris Okay, we have modified the pernode behavior as you requested (on the trunk as of r12821)- give it a shot and see if that does it. I have not yet added the npernode option, but hope to get that soon.
I have a question for you about the npernode option. I am assuming that you want n procs/node, but that you want it mapped by NODE. For example, proc 0 goes on the first node, proc 1 goes on the second node, etc. until I get one on each node; then I wrap back to the beginning and do this again until I get the specified number of procs on each node. Correct? Ralph >Ralph, >I agree with what you stated in points 1-4. That is what we are looking >for. >I understand your point now about the non-MPI users too. :-) > >Thanks, >-cdm >>-----Original Message----- >>From: users-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:users-bounces_at_[hidden]] On >>Behalf Of Ralph Castain >>Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:01 AM >>To: Open MPI Users >>Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Pernode request >> >>Hi Chris >> >>Thanks for the patience and the clarification - much appreciated. In >>fact, I have someone that needs to learn more about the code base, so I >>think I will assign this to him. At the least, he will have to learn a >>lot more about the mapper! >> >>I have no problem with modifying the pernode behavior to deal with the >>case of someone specifying -np as you describe. It would be relatively >>easy to check. As I understand it, you want the behavior to be: >> >>1. if no -np is specified, launch one proc/node across entire allocation >> >>2. if -np n is specified AND n is less than the number of allocated >>nodes, then launch one proc/node up to the specified number. Of course, >>this is identical to just doing -np n -bynode, but that's immaterial. >>;-) >> >>3. if -np n is specified AND n is greater than the number of allocated >>nodes, error message and exit >> >>4. add a -npernode n option that launches n procs/node, subject to the >>same tests above. >> >>Can you confirm? >> >>Finally, I think you misunderstood my comment about the MPI folks. Our >>non-MPI users couldn't care less about commonality of command line >>arguments across MPI implementations. Hence, I leave issues in that area >>to the MPI members of the team - they are the ones that decide how to >>deal with the myriad of different option syntaxes in the MPI community. >> >>Gives me too much of a headache! :-) >> >>Ralph
