Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

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.

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Affect of compression on modex and launch messages
From: Ralph H Castain (rhc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-07 09:54:38


On 4/7/08 7:45 AM, "Gleb Natapov" <glebn_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 07:28:07AM -0600, Ralph H Castain wrote:
>>> Also can you explain how
>>> allgather is implemented in orte (sorry if you already explained this once
>>> and I missed it).
>>
>> The default method is for each proc to send its modex data to its local
>> daemon. The local daemon collects the messages until all of its local procs
>> have contributed, then sends the collected data to the rank=0 application
>> proc. One rank=0 has received a message from every daemon, it xcasts the
>> collected result to all procs in its job.
>>
> Only collected result is compressed or messages from each proc to local
> daemon and messages from local daemon to rank=0 are compressed too?

The individual inbound messages are not currently compressed prior to
sending - too small to bother

> And, may be a stupid question, but I have to ask :) When rank=0 xcast
> collected modex it compress it once or for each rank separately.

No, it only compresses the total message

So there is only one compress being done - the total modex message collected
"raw" and then is compressed just prior to xcast. Each proc then
uncompresses the result it receives from rank=0 before processing it.

> Also I think if rank=0 will compress each modex message during
> receive it can save some work during xcast.

Seems to me like one compress of the entire message has to be a great deal
faster than N compressions of N small messages...

>
> --
> Gleb.