Hi Chris I have also implemented --npernode N now as well - it is in the trunk as of r12826.
The testing you show below using mpiexec really doesn't tell us the story - we need to know the rank of the various processes (and unfortunately, hostname just tells us the host). There is no way to tell the rank from just the order in which the host names are printed to the screen. I have a test program in our distribution (see orte/test/mpi/hello_hostname.c) that will output both the rank and hostname - it would give us the required info. Regardless, I think it would make sense to provide the flexibility you describe. What if we selected this "by-X-slot" style by using the --npernode option, and allowing the user to combine it with the existing "--byslot" option? This would still launch N procs/node, but with the ranking done by slot. If the user doesn't specify "byslot", then we default to assigning ranks by node. Make sense? If so, I can probably have that going before the holiday. Ralph On 12/11/06 7:51 PM, "Maestas, Christopher Daniel" <cdma...@sandia.gov> wrote: > Hello Ralph, > > This is great news! Thanks for doing this. I will try and get around > to it soon before the holiday break. > > The allocation scheme always seems to get to me. From what you describe > that is how I would have seen it. As I've gotten to know osc mpiexec > through the years I think they like to do a first fit approach, but now > that I test it I think the feature needs more testing or I'm not testing > appropriately :-) > --- > $ /apps/x86_64/system/mpiexec-0.82/bin/mpiexec -comm=none -npernode 2 > grep HOSTNAME /etc/sysconfig/network > HOSTNAME="an56" > HOSTNAME="an56" > HOSTNAME="an55" > HOSTNAME="an53" > HOSTNAME="an54" > HOSTNAME="an55" > HOSTNAME="an53" > HOSTNAME="an54" > --- > > I guess I would wonder if it would be possible to switch from the method > what you suggest and also allow a "by-X-slot" style of launch where you > would see for npernode = X and N nodes: > proc1 - node1 > proc2 - node1 > ... > proc(X*1) - node1 > ... > proc(X+1) - node2 > proc(X+2) - node2 > ... > proc(X*2) - node2 > ... > proc(N*X-(X-0)) - nodeN > proc(N*X-(X-1)) - nodeN > ... > proc(X*N-1) - nodeN > proc(X*N) - nodeN > > I think that's how to best describe it. Basically you load until there > are X processes on each node before moving to the next. This may prove > to be more challenging, and I can understand if it would not be deemed > "worthy." :-) > > -cdm > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: users-boun...@open-mpi.org >> [mailto:users-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Castain >> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 5:41 PM >> To: Open MPI Users >> Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Pernode request >> >> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> us...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >> > > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
