I actually had too many Ethernet ports open. When specify which Ethernet to use by btl_tcp_if_include the program works like a charm :)
Thanks for inputs. Cheers On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Jeffrey Squyres <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > On Apr 4, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Rohan Deshpande wrote: > > > Yes they are on same subnet. ips for example - 192.168.1.1, > 192.168.1.2, 192.168.1.3 > > This is generally considered a bad idea, not just for MPI, but for Linux > in general. Google around about this. One reason, for example, is that > there is no way to guarantee which IP interface traffic will actually be > sent out. For example, if you open a socket to a peer IP address (e.g., > 192.168.1.10), which IP address will be used to create that socket -- .1, > .2, or .3? There's no way to know. > > (this is actually exactly the scenario that OMPI was complaining about; it > got a socket from an unexpected IP address, and therefore got confused and > basically said, "hey human, go figure this out") > > You need to put your IP interfaces on different IP subnets. E.g., have > eth0 on 192.168.1.x/24, eth1 on 192.168.2.x/24, and eth2 on 192.168.3.x/24. > It depends on how your networks are configured and what hardware you have > -- you can implement this with switch-based VLANs (e.g., the ports that the > 1.x wires go into are hard-wired to VLAN 10, the ports that the 2.x wires > go into are hard-wired to VLAN 20, etc.), or using multiple switches (e.g., > each 1.x wire goes to switch A, each 2.x wire goes to switch B, etc.). > > Make sense? > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > -- Best Regards, ROHAN DESHPANDE
