Check out this FAQ entry:
http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=tcp#tcp-selection
Note that there are btl_tcp_if_include / btl_tcp_if_exclude: these control
MPI-level communications. There's also oob_tcp_if_include / oob_tcp_if_exclude
(that take the same kinds of values as btl_tcp_if_include/exclude) that control
OMPI's run-time environment communications.
On Oct 5, 2011, at 12:01 PM, (.-=Kiwi=-.) wrote:
> "OMPI always tries to use the lowest numbered address first - just a natural
> ordering."
>
> That doesn't seem to be the reason. We changed the private IPs to 212... (a
> higher number than the public 210... IPs) and still MPI tries to go to 212
> afterwards.
>
> We're reading the oob_tcp and btl_tcp parameters but we're not sure how to do
> it.
>
> "But if hello world doesn't even run, then try running with "mpirun --mca
> oob_tcp_if_include <the interface(s) you want to use> ...", per Ralph's
> suggestion. If *that* doesn't work, also add "--mca btl_tcp_if_include ..."
> as well."
>
> We tried doing from Computer 1:
>
> orterun -mca oob_tcp_debug 1 -np 1 -host 212...3 ifconfig
>
> and everything was ok
>
> We tried doing from Computer 1:
>
> orterun -mca oob_tcp_debug 1 -np 1 -host 210...101 ifconfig
>
> and it says:
>
> There are no allocated resources for the application
> ifconfig
> that match the requested mapping:
>
>
> Verify that you have mapped the allocated resources properly using the
> --host or --hostfile specification.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A daemon (pid unknown) died unexpectedly on signal 1 while attempting to
> launch so we are aborting. [...]
>
> Any other ideas?
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:54 AM, Ralph Castain <rhc.open...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OMPI always tries to use the lowest numbered address first - just a natural
> ordering. You need to tell it to use just the public ones for this topology.
> Use the oob_tcp and btl_tcp parameters to do this. See "ompi_info --param oob
> tcp" and "ompi_info --param btl tcp" for the exact syntax.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:21 AM, "(.-=Kiwi=-.)" <heffe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We are constructing a set of computers with Open MPI and there's a small
>> problem with mixing public and private IPs.
>>
>> We aren't sure about what's causing the problem or how to solve it.
>>
>> The files are shared thanks to NFS and we have a couple computers with
>> private IPs and public IPs that we want them to send MPI work to some
>> machines that have public IPs.
>>
>> I'm going to try to describe with example IPs.
>>
>> Computer 1 sees itself as eth0: 172...2 but has a public IP assigned:
>> 210...2
>> Computer 2 sees itself as eth0: 172...3 but has a public IP assigned:
>> 210...3
>> Computers outside the subnet directly have public IPs assigned: 210...100+
>>
>> The computers outside see Computer 1 and 2 only with 210... they can't see
>> the 172... internal IPs.
>>
>> If an outside computer launches mpirun to Computer 1, it works ok.
>> If Computer 1 tries to launch mpirun to Computer 2 (with 172...) it also
>> works ok (not with 210... because they don't know that that's their public
>> IP, but that's not an issue).
>>
>> The problem comes when Computer 1 or 2 try to launch mpirun to outside
>> computers.
>>
>> We tried to check out what was happening and installed wireshark on an
>> outside computer and it seems that the ssh part works ok (the ssh talk
>> between 210...2 and 210...101 is ok), but after that the outside computer
>> tries to send a TCP SYN package to 172...2 instead of 210...2 and the rest
>> of the packets onward the same.
>>
>> Is there a way to solve this problem?
>>
>> I've read this (
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2009/11/11184.php ) but I'm
>> not really sure what he's doing there.
>>
>> We have the option of plugging Computer 1 and Computer 2 directly to the
>> switch that the outside computers are on, but we'd rather not because we'd
>> prefer the computers to stay on the private network, but if there's no other
>> way, I guess we can.
>>
>> Can it be done without having to change the network topology?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> us...@open-mpi.org
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
