FWIW: I see similar behaviour on my laptop (OS X Yosemite 10.10.2).
> On 02 Feb 2015, at 21:26 , Mark Santcroos <mark.santcr...@rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
> Ok, let me check on some other systems too though, it might be Cray specific.
>
>
>> On 02 Feb 2015, at 19:07 , Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote:
>>
>> Yikes - looks like a bug crept into there at the last minute. I actually had
>> it working just fine - not sure what happened here. I'm on travel this week,
>> but I'll try to dig into this a bit and spot the issue.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Mark Santcroos <mark.santcr...@rutgers.edu>
>> wrote:
>> Hi Ralph,
>>
>> Great, the semantics look exactly as what I need!
>>
>> (To aid in debugging I added "--debug-devel" to orte-dvm.c which was useful
>> to detect and come by some initial bumps)
>>
>> The current status:
>>
>> * I can submit applications and see their output on the orte-dvm console
>>
>> * The following message is reported infinitely on the orte-submit console:
>>
>> [warn] opal_libevent2022_event_base_loop: reentrant invocation. Only one
>> event_base_loop can run on each event_base at once.
>>
>> * orte-submit doesn't return, while I see "[nid02819:20571] [[2120,0],0]
>> dvm: job [2120,9] has completed" on the orte-dvm console.
>>
>> * On the orte-dvm console I see the following when submitting (so also for
>> "successful" runs):
>>
>> [nid02434:00564] [[9021,0],0] Releasing job data for [INVALID]
>> [nid03388:26474] [[9021,0],2] ORTE_ERROR_LOG: Not found in file
>> ../../../../orte/mca/odls/base/odls_base_default_fns.c at line 433
>> [nid03534:31545] procdir: /tmp/openmpi-sessions-62758@nid03534_0/9021/1/0
>> [nid03534:31545] jobdir: /tmp/openmpi-sessions-62758@nid03534_0/9021/1
>> [nid03534:31545] top: openmpi-sessions-62758@nid03534_0
>> [nid03534:31545] tmp: /tmp
>> [nid03534:31545] sess_dir_finalize: proc session dir does not exist
>>
>> * If I dont specify any "-np" on the orte-submit, then I see on the orte-dvm
>> console:
>>
>> [nid02434:00564] [[9021,0],0] Releasing job data for [INVALID]
>> [nid03388:26474] [[9021,0],2] ORTE_ERROR_LOG: Not found in file
>> ../../../../orte/mca/odls/base/odls_base_default_fns.c at line 433
>> [nid03534:31544] [[9021,0],1] ORTE_ERROR_LOG: Not found in file
>> ../../../../orte/mca/odls/base/odls_base_default_fns.c at line 433
>>
>> * It only seems to work for single nodes (probably related to the previous
>> point).
>>
>>
>> Is this all expected behaviour given the current implementation?
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 02 Feb 2015, at 4:21 , Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have pushed the changes to the OMPI master. It took a little bit more
>>> than I had hoped due to the changes to the ORTE infrastructure, but
>>> hopefully this will meet your needs. It consists of two new tools:
>>>
>>> (a) orte-dvm - starts the virtual machine by launching a daemon on every
>>> node of the allocation, as constrained by -host and/or -hostfile. Check the
>>> options for outputting the URI as you’ll need that info for the other tool.
>>> The DVM remains “up” until you issue the orte-submit -terminate command, or
>>> hit the orte-dvm process with a sigterm.
>>>
>>> (b) orte-submit - takes the place of mpirun. Basically just packages your
>>> app and arguments and sends it to orte-dvm for execution. Requires the URI
>>> of orte-dvm. The tool exits once the job has completed execution, though
>>> you can run multiple jobs in parallel by backgrounding orte-submit or
>>> issuing commands from separate shells.
>>>
>>> I’ve added man pages for both tools, though they may not be complete. Also,
>>> I don’t have all the mapping/ranking/binding options supported just yet as
>>> I first wanted to see if this meets your basic needs before worrying about
>>> the detail.
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 21, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Mark Santcroos <mark.santcr...@rutgers.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ralph,
>>>>
>>>> All makes sense! Thanks a lot!
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to your modifications.
>>>> Please don't hesitate to through things with rough-edges to me!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 23:21 , Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me address your questions up here so you don’t have to scan thru the
>>>>> entire note.
>>>>>
>>>>> PMIx rationale: PMI has been around for a long time, primarily used
>>>>> inside the MPI library implementations to perform wireup. It provided a
>>>>> link from the MPI library to the local resource manager. However, as we
>>>>> move towards exascale, two things became apparent:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. the current PMI implementations don’t scale adequately to get there.
>>>>> The API created too many communications and assumed everything was a
>>>>> blocking operation, thus preventing asynchronous progress
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. there were increasing requests for application-level interactions to
>>>>> the resource manager. People want ways to spawn jobs (and not just from
>>>>> within MPI), request pre-location of data, control power, etc. Rather
>>>>> than having every RM write its own interface (and thus make everyone’s
>>>>> code non-portable), we at Intel decided to extend the existing PMI
>>>>> definitions to support those functions. Thus, an application developer
>>>>> can directly access PMIx functions to perform all those operations.
>>>>>
>>>>> PMIx v1.0 is about to be released - it’ll be backward compatible with
>>>>> PMI-1 and PMI-2, plus add non-blocking operations and significantly
>>>>> reduce the number of communications. PMIx 2.0 is slated for this summer
>>>>> and will include the advanced controls capabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> ORCM is being developed because we needed a BSD-licensed, fully featured
>>>>> resource manager. This will allow us to integrate the RM even more
>>>>> tightly to the file system, networking, and other subsystems, thus
>>>>> achieving higher launch performance and providing desired features such
>>>>> as QoS management. PMIx is a part of that plan, but as you say, they each
>>>>> play their separate roles in the overall stack.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Persistent ORTE: there is a learning curve on ORTE, I fear. We do have
>>>>> some videos on the web site that can help get you started, and I’ve given
>>>>> a number of “classes" at Intel now for that purpose. I still have it on
>>>>> my “to-do” list that I summarize those classes and post them on the web
>>>>> site.
>>>>>
>>>>> For now, let me summarize how things work. At startup, mpirun reads the
>>>>> allocation (usually from the environment, but it depends on the host RM)
>>>>> and launches a daemon on each allocated node. Each daemon reads its local
>>>>> hardware environment and “phones home” to let mpirun know it is alive.
>>>>> Once all daemons have reported, mpirun maps the processes to the nodes
>>>>> and sends that map to all the daemons in a scalable broadcast pattern.
>>>>>
>>>>> Upon receipt of the launch message, each daemon parses it to identify
>>>>> which procs it needs to locally spawn. Once spawned, each proc connects
>>>>> back to its local daemon via a Unix domain socket for wireup support. As
>>>>> procs complete, the daemon maintains bookkeeping and reports back to
>>>>> mpirun once all procs are done. When all procs are reported complete (or
>>>>> one reports as abnormally terminated), mpirun sends a “die” message to
>>>>> every daemon so it will cleanly terminate.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I will do is simply tell mpirun to not do that last step, but
>>>>> instead to wait to receive a “terminate” cmd before ending the daemons.
>>>>> This will allow you to reuse the existing DVM, making each independent
>>>>> job start a great deal faster. You’ll need to either manually terminate
>>>>> the DVM, or the RM will do so when the allocation expires.
>>>>>
>>>>> HTH
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 21, 2015, at 12:52 PM, Mark Santcroos
>>>>>> <mark.santcr...@rutgers.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Ralph,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 21:20 , Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Mark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 21, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Mark Santcroos
>>>>>>>> <mark.santcr...@rutgers.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Ralph, all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To give some background, I'm part of the RADICAL-Pilot [1] development
>>>>>>>> team.
>>>>>>>> RADICAL-Pilot is a Pilot System, an implementation of the Pilot (job)
>>>>>>>> concept, which is in its most minimal form takes care of the
>>>>>>>> decoupling of resource acquisition and workload management.
>>>>>>>> So instead of launching your real_science.exe through PBS, you submit
>>>>>>>> a Pilot, which will allow you to perform application level scheduling.
>>>>>>>> Most obvious use-case if you want to run many (relatively) small
>>>>>>>> tasks, then you really don;t want to go through the batch system every
>>>>>>>> time. That is besides the fact that these machines are very bad in
>>>>>>>> managing many tasks anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, we sympathize.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thats always good :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, one obvious solution is to get an allocation and execute a
>>>>>>> shell script that runs the tasks within that allocation - yes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really. Most of our use-cases have dynamic runtime properties, which
>>>>>> means that at t=0 the exact workload is not known.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, I don't think such a script would allow me to work around
>>>>>> the aprun bottleneck, as I'm not aware of a way to start MPI tasks that
>>>>>> span multiple nodes from a Cray worker node.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I looked a bit better at ORCM and it clearly overlaps with what I want
>>>>>>>> to achieve.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed. In ORCM, we allow a user to request a “session” that results in
>>>>>>> allocation of resources. Each session is given an “orchestrator” - the
>>>>>>> ORCM “shepherd” daemon - responsible for executing the individual tasks
>>>>>>> across the assigned allocation, and a collection of “lamb” daemons (one
>>>>>>> on each node of the allocation) that forms a distributed VM. The
>>>>>>> orchestrator can execute the tasks very quickly since it doesn’t have
>>>>>>> to go back to the scheduler, and we allow it to do so according to any
>>>>>>> provided precedence requirement. Again, for simplicity, a shell script
>>>>>>> is the default mechanism for submitting the individual tasks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, similar solution to a similar problem.
>>>>>> I noticed that Exascale is also part of the motivation? How does this
>>>>>> relate to the pmix effort? Different part of the stack I guess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One thing I noticed is that parts of it runs as root, why is that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ORCM is a full resource manager, which means it has a scheduler
>>>>>>> (rudimentary today) and boot-time daemons that must run as root so they
>>>>>>> can fork/exec the session-level daemons (that run at the user level).
>>>>>>> The orchestrator and its daemons all run at the user-level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok. Our solution is user-space only, as one of our features is that we
>>>>>> are able to run across different type of systems. Both approaches come
>>>>>> with a tradeoff obviously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We used to have a cmd line option in ORTE for what you propose - it
>>>>>>>>> wouldn’t be too hard to restore. Is there some reason to do so?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you point me to something that I could look for in the repo
>>>>>>>> history, then I can see if it serves my purpose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be back in the svn repo, I fear - would take awhile to hunt it
>>>>>>> down. Basically, it just (a) started all the daemons to create a VM,
>>>>>>> and (b) told mpirun to stick around as a persistent daemon. All
>>>>>>> subsequent calls to mpirun would reference back to the persistent one,
>>>>>>> thus using it to launch the jobs against the standing VM instead of
>>>>>>> starting a new one every time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *nod* That's what I tried to do this afternoon actually with the
>>>>>> "--ompi-server", but that was not meant to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For ORCM, we just took that capability and expressed it as the
>>>>>>> “shepherd” plus “lamb” daemon architecture described above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ACK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you don’t want to replace the base RM, then using ORTE to establish
>>>>>>> a persistent VM is probably the way to go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, thats what it sounds like. Plus that ORTE is generic enough that
>>>>>> I can re-use it on other type of systems too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can probably make it do that again fairly readily. We have a
>>>>>>> developer’s meeting next week, which usually means I have some free
>>>>>>> time (during evenings and topics I’m not involved with), so I can take
>>>>>>> a crack at this then if that would be timely enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Happy to accept that offer. At this stage I'm not sure if I would want a
>>>>>> CLI or would be more interested to be able to do this programmatically
>>>>>> though.
>>>>>> Also more than willing to assist in any way I can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried to see how it all worked, but because of the modular nature of
>>>>>> ompi that was quite daunting. There is some learning curve I guess :-)
>>>>>> So it seems that mpirun is persistent, and opens up a listening port,
>>>>>> then some orded's get launched that phone home.
>>>>>> From there I got lost in the MCA maze. How do the tasks get unto the
>>>>>> compute nodes and started?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a lot again, I appreciate your help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>> us...@open-mpi.org
>>>>>> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>>> Link to this post:
>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/01/26227.php
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>> us...@open-mpi.org
>>>>> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>>> Link to this post:
>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/01/26228.php
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> users mailing list
>>>> us...@open-mpi.org
>>>> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>>> Link to this post:
>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/01/26229.php
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> users mailing list
>>> us...@open-mpi.org
>>> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>> Link to this post:
>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/02/26249.php
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> us...@open-mpi.org
>> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>> Link to this post:
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/02/26254.php
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> us...@open-mpi.org
>> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>> Link to this post:
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/02/26256.php
>
