Being consistent makes sense to me. Question though, if we set: --- OMPI_MCA_rmaps_base_schedule_policy=node ---
Would that still map -npernode allocations on a bynode basis too? I think it should. What's funny is how the old mpirun w/ rsh or ssh from long ago in mpich, used to basically map by node mapping, and we've come to see us mapping byslot now. Dang those smp systems. :-) -cdm > -----Original Message----- > From: users-boun...@open-mpi.org > [mailto:users-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Ralph H Castain > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 6:57 AM > To: Open MPI Users <us...@open-mpi.org> > Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Pernode request > > > > > On 12/12/06 9:18 AM, "Maestas, Christopher Daniel" > <cdma...@sandia.gov> > wrote: > > > Ralph, > > > > I figured I should of run an mpi program ...here's what it > does (seems > > to be by-X-slot style): > > --- > > $ /apps/x86_64/system/mpiexec-0.82/bin/mpiexec -npernode 2 mpi_hello > > Hello, I am node an41 with rank 0 > > Hello, I am node an41 with rank 1 > > Hello, I am node an39 with rank 4 > > Hello, I am node an40 with rank 2 > > Hello, I am node an38 with rank 6 > > Hello, I am node an39 with rank 5 > > Hello, I am node an38 with rank 7 > > Hello, I am node an40 with rank 3 > > --- > > Clearly mapping by slot here. Question: our default mapping > mode is by slot, > as this example also shows. I could turn the npernode > behavior around from > what I previously described - we could default to mapping by > slot (as we do > normally, and in concert with what mpiexec appears to be > doing), and let > users provide the "-bynode" option to change to mapping by node. > > This wouldn't have any affect on the pernode behavior since > that option only > maps one proc/node anyway (so mapping by slot or by node > yields the same > result). > > It seems to me this would be more consistent. Make sense? > Ralph > > >
