Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

From: Aurelien Bouteiller (bouteill_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-27 18:42:57


I basically agree with Terry, even if your proposal would solve all
the issue I currently face. I think we need to read the MPI2 standard
to make sure we are not on the brink of breaking the standard.

Aurelien

On Jul 27, 2007, at 10:13 , Ralph Castain wrote:

>
>
>
> On 7/27/07 7:58 AM, "Terry D. Dontje" <Terry.Dontje_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Ralph Castain wrote:
>>
>>> WHAT: Proposal to add two new command line options that will
>>> allow us to
>>> replace the current need to separately launch a persistent
>>> daemon to
>>> support connect/accept operations
>>>
>>> WHY: Remove problems of confusing multiple allocations,
>>> provide a cleaner
>>> method for connect/accept between jobs
>>>
>>> WHERE: minor changes in orterun and orted, some code in rmgr and
>>> each pls
>>> to ensure the proper jobid and connect info is passed to each
>>> app_context as it is launched
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It is my opinion that we would be better off attacking the issues of
>> the persistent daemons described below then creating a new set of
>> options to mpirun for process placement. (more comments below on
>> the actual proposal).
>
> Non-trivial problems - we haven't figured them out in three years of
> occasional effort. It isn't clear that they even -can- be solved when
> considering the problem of running in multiple RM-based allocations.
>
> I'll try to provide more detail on the problems when I return from
> my quick
> trip...
>