This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
I've talked with both Brian and Rich about the measurements and they are
ok with the new findings. I also have not received any other comments
to the negative on putting 1097 into the v1.2 branch. So I would like
to instruct Tim Mattox to bring over the 1097 change to v1.2 branch and
make a new 1.2 RC.
Terry Dontje wrote:
> Nikolay and Community,
> Sorry to be so late in responding to your email but I've been working
> with Pak to determine whether my hasty decision as RM yesterday was
> hasty or not. To answer your question, we are still trying to determine
> if the message queue support can go in or not and the below is my
> perspective on whether we should.
> A couple things have transpired in the last 24 hours from when we had
> our concall. As Jeff surmised earlier this morning Pak did accidentally
> have debugging enabled which did skew the numbers quite a bit. After
> making sure debugging was disabled for both builds (v1.2 and the tmp
> branch with the message queue fixes) we then fretted over the numbers.
> It looks to me that there is quite a bit of variance in the numbers that
> the OSU latency, IMB latency and mpi_ping all produce.
> For example in using the OSU latency tests we say the MX MTL have a .01
> us difference between v1.2 and the tmp branch (in favor of v1.2).
> However the mean, trimmed mean and median have about .02-07us difference
> (in favor of the tmp branch). To me the data looks pretty much the same
> and the fact that we are measuring the averages (ie none of the tests
> pick out the minimum value) makes these numbers even more hard to really
> nail down IMHO. I've essentially seen this affect for the other tests
> (IMB and mpi_ping).
> For the SM timings using the mpi_ping tests we have seen a range of
> average latencies from 1.47-1.5 us for both the tmp and v1.2 so they
> seem like moral equivalents to me. Rich Graham has led me to believe
> that he might get more consistent numbers but we are not able to and so
> I can only deduce that the numbers are essentially the same.
> In conclusion I believe both the CM PML (MX MTL) and the SM BTL
> performance is about the same between the tmp branch and v1.2. Because
> of this I would like to request that the 1097 cmr be put into 1.2.4. If
> others disagree with my assessment above I think a discussion will need
> to ensue and I would welcome further testing by others that may show
> that the changes have regressed performance (or not). I would like to
> set a timeout of 12 noon ET for others to comment whether these new
> findings puts our fears at ease. At that time if not descenting
> comments have been received I would like to ask Tim to pull in these
> changes and rebuild 1.2.4.
> Nikolay Piskun wrote:
>> Just to verify, before I'll start testing this, there will be no
>> message queue debugging support in this version, correct? This all
>> goes to 1.3 release.
>> Best Regards,
>> P.S. It looks like it is time for us to be more formally involved in
>> this work.
>> Nikolay Piskun
>> Director of Continuing Engineering, TotalView Technologies
>> 24 Prime Parkway, Natick, MA 01760
>> devel mailing list
> devel mailing list