On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > > On Apr 27, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Michael Di Domenico wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 27, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Michael Di Domenico wrote: >>> >>>> Was this ever committed to the OMPI src as something not having to be >>>> run outside of OpenMPI, but as part of the PSM setup that OpenMPI >>>> does? >>> >>> Not that I know of - I don't think the PSM developers ever looked at it. >>> >>>> >>>> I'm having some trouble getting Slurm/OpenMPI to play nice with the >>>> setup of this key. Namely, with slurm you cannot export variables >>>> from the --prolog of an srun, only from an --task-prolog, >>>> unfortunately, if you use a task-prolog each rank gets a different >>>> key, which doesn't work. >>>> >>>> I'm also guessing that each unique mpirun needs it's own psm key, not >>>> one for the whole system, so i can't just make it a permanent >>>> parameter somewhere else. >>>> >>>> Also, i recall reading somewhere that the --resv-ports parameter that >>>> OMPI uses from slurm to choose a list of ports to use for TCP comm's, >>>> tries to lock a port from the pool three times before giving up. >>> >>> Had to look back at the code - I think you misread this. I can find no >>> evidence in the code that we try to bind that port more than once. >> >> Perhaps i misstated, i don't believe you're trying to bind to the same >> port twice during the same session. i believe the code re-uses >> similar ports from session to session. what i believe happens (but >> could be totally wrong) the previous session releases the port, but >> linux isn't quite done with it when the new session tries to bind to >> the port, in which case it tries three times and then fails the job > > Actually, I understood you correctly. I'm just saying that I find no evidence > in the code that we try three times before giving up. What I see is a single > attempt to bind the port - if it fails, then we abort. There is no parameter > to control that behavior. > > So if the OS hasn't released the port by the time a new job starts on that > node, then it will indeed abort if the job was unfortunately given the same > port reservation.
Oh, okay, sorry...
