On 31/08/2007, Gleb Natapov <gl...@voltaire.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:49:10AM +0200, Sven Stork wrote: > > On Friday 31 August 2007 09:07, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 08:04:00AM +0100, Simon Hammond wrote: > > > > On 31/08/2007, Lev Givon <l...@columbia.edu> wrote: > > > > > Received from George Bosilca on Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:42:52PM EDT: > > > > > > I have a patch for this, but I never felt a real need for it, so I > > > > > > never push it in the trunk. I'm not completely convinced that we > > > > > > need > > > > > > it, except in some really strange situations (read grid). Why do you > > > > > > need a port range ? For avoiding firewalls ? > > > > > > > > We are planning on using OpenMPI as the basis for running MPI jobs > > > > across a series of workstations overnight. The workstations are locked > > > > down so that only a small number of ports are available for use. If we > > > > try to use anything else its disaster. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately this is really an organizational policy above anything > > > > else and its very difficult to get it to change. > > > > > > > > > > > As workaround you can write application that will bind to all ports that > > > are not allowed to be used by MPI before running MPI job. > > > > Another option could be (if that match your policy) to limit the dynamic > > port > > range that is used by your OS. By this all application (unless they ask for > > an specific port) will get ports in this limited port range. If so the > > following link might be interesting for you: > > > > http://www.ncftp.com/ncftpd/doc/misc/ephemeral_ports.html > > > I was sure it is possible to set a port range on Linux, but didn't know how. > This is much better workaround.
Thanks guys, I'll give this a try. Si Hammond > > -- > Gleb. > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >
