On 7/26/07 4:22 PM, "Aurelien Bouteiller" <bouteill_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> mpirun -hostfile big_pool -n 10 -host 1,2,3,4 application : -n 2 -host
>> 99,100 ft_server
> This will not work: this is a way to launch MIMD jobs, that share the
> same COMM_WORLD. Not the way to launch two different applications that
> interact trough Accept/Connect.
> Direct consequence on simple NAS benchmarks are:
> * if the second command does not use MPI-Init, then the first
> application locks forever in MPI-Init
> * if both use MPI init, the MPI_Comm_size of the jobs are incorrect.
> bouteill_at_dancer:~$ ompi-build/debug/bin/mpirun -prefix
> /home/bouteill/ompi-build/debug/ -np 4 -host node01,node02,node03,node04
> NPB3.2-MPI/bin/lu.A.4 : -np 1 -host node01 NPB3.2-MPI/bin/mg.A.1
> NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.2 -- LU Benchmark
> Warning: program is running on 5 processors
> but was compiled for 4
> Size: 64x 64x 64
> Iterations: 250
> Number of processes: 5
Okay - of course, I can't possibly have any idea how your application
However, it would be trivial to simply add two options to the app_context
1. designates that this app_context is to be launched as a separate job
2. indicates that this app_context is to be "connected" ala connect/accept
to the other app_contexts (if you want, we could even take an argument
indicating which app_contexts it is to be connected to). Or we could reverse
this as indicate we want it to be disconnected - all depends upon what
default people want to define.
This would solve the problem you describe while still allowing us to avoid
allocation confusion. I'll send it out separately as an RFC.
> devel mailing list