Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] -display-map
From: Greg Watson (g.watson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-15 13:03:26


Ralph,

I think the second form would be ideal and would simplify things
greatly.

Greg

On Jan 15, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:

> Here is what I was able to do - note that the resolve messages are
> associated with the specific hostname, not the overall map:
>
> <map>
> <host name="graywolf54.lanl.gov" slots="1" max_slots="0">
> <noderesolve name="graywolf54.lanl.gov" resolved="localhost"/>
> <process rank="0"/>
> <process rank="1"/>
> <process rank="2"/>
> </host>
> </map>
>
> Will that work for you? If you like, I can remove the name= field
> from the noderesolve element since the info is specific to the host
> element that contains it. In other words, I can make it look like
> this:
>
> <map>
> <host name="graywolf54.lanl.gov" slots="1" max_slots="0">
> <noderesolve resolved="localhost"/>
> <process rank="0"/>
> <process rank="1"/>
> <process rank="2"/>
> </host>
> </map>
>
> if that would help.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>
>> We -may- be able to do a more formal XML output at some point. The
>> problem will be the natural interleaving of stdout/err from the
>> various procs due to the async behavior of MPI. Mpirun receives
>> fragmented output in the forwarding system, limited by the buffer
>> sizes and the amount of data we can read at any one "bite" from the
>> pipes connecting us to the procs. So even though the user -thinks-
>> they output a single large line of stuff, it may show up at mpirun
>> as a series of fragments. Hence, it gets tricky to know how to put
>> appropriate XML brackets around it.
>>
>> Given this input about when you actually want resolved name info, I
>> can at least do something about that area. Won't be in 1.3.0, but
>> should make 1.3.1.
>>
>> As for XML-tagged stdout/err: the OMPI community asked me not to
>> turn that feature "on" for 1.3.0 as they felt it hasn't been
>> adequately tested yet. The code is present, but cannot be activated
>> in 1.3.0. However, I believe it is activated on the trunk when you
>> do --xml --tagged-output, so perhaps some testing will help us
>> debug and validate it adequately for 1.3.1?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2009, at 7:02 AM, Greg Watson wrote:
>>
>>> Ralph,
>>>
>>> The only time we use the resolved names is when we get a map, so
>>> we consider them part of the map output.
>>>
>>> If quasi-XML is all that will ever be possible with 1.3, then you
>>> may as well leave as-is and we will attempt to clean it up in
>>> Eclipse. It would be nice if a future version of ompi could output
>>> correct XML (including stdout) as this would vastly simplify the
>>> parsing we need to do.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:30 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmmm...well, I can't do either for 1.3.0 as it is departing this
>>>> afternoon.
>>>>
>>>> The first option would be very hard to do. I would have to expose
>>>> the display-map option across the code base and check it prior to
>>>> printing anything about resolving node names. I guess I should
>>>> ask: do you only want noderesolve statements when we are
>>>> displaying the map? Right now, I will output them regardless.
>>>>
>>>> The second option could be done. I could check if any "display"
>>>> option has been specified, and output the <ompi> root at that
>>>> time (likewise for the end). Anything we output in-between would
>>>> be encapsulated between the two, but that would include any user
>>>> output to stdout and/or stderr - which for 1.3.0 is not in xml.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> PS. Guess I should clarify that I was not striving for true XML
>>>> interaction here, but rather a quasi-XML format that would help
>>>> you to filter the output. I have no problem trying to get to
>>>> something more formally correct, but it could be tricky in some
>>>> places to achieve it due to the inherent async nature of the beast.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Greg Watson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ralph,
>>>>>
>>>>> The XML is looking better now, but there is still one problem.
>>>>> To be valid, there needs to be only one root element, but
>>>>> currently you don't have any (or many). So rather than:
>>>>>
>>>>> <noderesolve name="node0" resolved="Jarrah.local"/>
>>>>> <noderesolve name="node1" resolved="Jarrah.local"/>
>>>>> <map>
>>>>> <host name="Jarrah.local" slots="8" max_slots="0">
>>>>> <process rank="0"/>
>>>>> <process rank="1"/>
>>>>> <process rank="2"/>
>>>>> <process rank="3"/>
>>>>> <process rank="4"/>
>>>>> </host>
>>>>> </map>
>>>>>
>>>>> the XML should be:
>>>>>
>>>>> <map>
>>>>> <noderesolve name="node0" resolved="Jarrah.local"/>
>>>>> <noderesolve name="node1" resolved="Jarrah.local"/>
>>>>> <host name="Jarrah.local" slots="8" max_slots="0">
>>>>> <process rank="0"/>
>>>>> <process rank="1"/>
>>>>> <process rank="2"/>
>>>>> <process rank="3"/>
>>>>> <process rank="4"/>
>>>>> </host>
>>>>> </map>
>>>>>
>>>>> or:
>>>>>
>>>>> <ompi>
>>>>> <noderesolve name="node0" resolved="Jarrah.local"/>
>>>>> <noderesolve name="node1" resolved="Jarrah.local"/>
>>>>> <map>
>>>>> <host name="Jarrah.local" slots="8" max_slots="0">
>>>>> <process rank="0"/>
>>>>> <process rank="1"/>
>>>>> <process rank="2"/>
>>>>> <process rank="3"/>
>>>>> <process rank="4"/>
>>>>> </host>
>>>>> </map>
>>>>> </ompi>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would either of these be possible?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 8, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Greg Watson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok thanks. I'll test from trunk in future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Working its way around the CMR process now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Might be easier in the future if we could test/debug this in
>>>>>>> the trunk, though. Otherwise, the CMR procedure will fall
>>>>>>> behind and a fix might miss a release window.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, hopefully this one will make the 1.3.0 release cutoff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Greg Watson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Ralph,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is now in 1.3rc2, thanks. However there are a couple of
>>>>>>>> problems. Here is what I see:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Jarrah.watson.ibm.com:58957] <noderesolve name="node0"
>>>>>>>> resolved="Jarrah.watson.ibm.com">
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For some reason each line is prefixed with "[...]", any idea
>>>>>>>> why this is? Also the end tag should be "/>" not ">".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 24, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Greg Watson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks. I'll take a look once it comes over to 1.3.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yo Greg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is in the trunk as of r20032. I'll bring it over to
>>>>>>>>>> 1.3 in a few days.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I implemented it as another MCA param
>>>>>>>>>> "orte_show_resolved_nodenames" so you can actually get the
>>>>>>>>>> info as you execute the job, if you want. The xml tag is
>>>>>>>>>> "noderesolve" - let me know if you need any changes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2008, at 11:55 AM, Greg Watson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I guess the issue for us is that we will have to run two
>>>>>>>>>>> commands to get the information we need. One to get the
>>>>>>>>>>> configuration information, such as version and MCA
>>>>>>>>>>> parameters, and one to get the host information, whereas
>>>>>>>>>>> it would seem more logical that this should all be
>>>>>>>>>>> available via some kind of "configuration discovery"
>>>>>>>>>>> command. I understand the issue with supplying the
>>>>>>>>>>> hostfile though, so maybe this just points at the need for
>>>>>>>>>>> us to separate configuration information from the host
>>>>>>>>>>> information. In any case, we'll work with what you think
>>>>>>>>>>> is best.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 20, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm...just to be sure we are all clear on this. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> reason we proposed to use mpirun is that "hostfile" has
>>>>>>>>>>>> no meaning outside of mpirun. That's why ompi_info can't
>>>>>>>>>>>> do anything in this regard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We have no idea what hostfile the user may specify until
>>>>>>>>>>>> we actually get the mpirun cmd line. They may have
>>>>>>>>>>>> specified a default-hostfile, but they could also specify
>>>>>>>>>>>> hostfiles for the individual app_contexts. These may or
>>>>>>>>>>>> may not include the node upon which mpirun is executing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So the only way to provide you with a separate command to
>>>>>>>>>>>> get a hostfile<->nodename mapping would require you to
>>>>>>>>>>>> provide us with the default-hostifle and/or hostfile cmd
>>>>>>>>>>>> line options just as if you were issuing the mpirun cmd.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We just wouldn't launch - but it would be the exact
>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent of doing "mpirun --do-not-launch".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am I missing something? If so, please do correct me - I
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be happy to provide a tool if that would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>> easier. Just not sure what that tool would do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Greg Watson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems a little strange to be using mpirun for this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but barring providing a separate command, or using
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ompi_info, I think this would solve our problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for delay - had to ponder this one for awhile.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff and I agree that adding something to ompi_info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not be a good idea. Ompi_info has no knowledge or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of hostfiles, and adding that capability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to it would be a major distortion of its intended use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, we think we can offer an alternative that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might better solve the problem. Remember, we now treat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostfiles in a very different manner than before - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wiki page for a complete description, or "man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orte_hosts".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the problem is that, to provide you with what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want, we need to "dump" the information from whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default-hostfile was provided, and, if no default-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostfile was provided, then the information from each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostfile that was provided with an app_context.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The best way we could think of to do this is to add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another mpirun cmd line option --dump-hostfiles that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would output the line-by-line name from the hostfile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plus the name we resolved it to. Of course, --xml would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause it to be in xml format.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would that meet your needs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Greg Watson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ralph,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been discussing this back and forth a bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internally and don't really see an easy solution. Our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is that Eclipse is not running on the head
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node, so gethostbyname will not necessarily resolve to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same address. For example, the hostfile might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refer to the head node by an internal network address
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not visible to the outside world. Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gethostname also looks in /etc/hosts, it may resolve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locally but not on a remote system. The only think I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can think of would be, rather than us reading the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostfile directly as we do now, to provide an option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ompi_info that would dump the hostfile using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same rules that you apply when you're using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostfile. Would that be feasible?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 22, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for delay - was on vacation and am now trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to work my way back to the surface.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I can fix this one for two reasons:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. In general, OMPI doesn't really care what name is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for the node. However, the problem is that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be consistent. In this case, ORTE has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already used the name returned by gethostname to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create its session directory structure long before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mpirun reads a hostfile. This is why we retain the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value from gethostname instead of allowing it to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwritten by the name in whatever allocation we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. Using the name in hostfile would require that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I either find some way to remember any prior name, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I tear down and rebuild the session directory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tree - neither seems attractive nor simple (e.g.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what happens when the user provides multiple entries
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the hostfile for the node, each with a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IP address based on another interface in that node?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds crazy, but we have already seen it done -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which one do I use?).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. We don't actually store the hostfile info anywhere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - we just use it and forget it. For us to add an XML
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute containing any hostfile-related info would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore require us to re-read the hostfile. I could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it do that -only- in the case of "XML output
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required", but it seems rather ugly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An alternative might be for you to simply do a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "gethostbyname" lookup of the IP address or hostname
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to see if it matches instead of just doing a strcmp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what we have to do internally as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequently have problems with FQDN vs. non-FQDN vs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IP addresses etc. If the local OS hasn't cached the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IP address for the node in question it can take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little time to DNS resolve it, but otherwise works
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can point you to the code in OPAL that we use - I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would think something similar would be easy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement in your code and would readily solve the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 19, 2008, at 7:18 AM, Greg Watson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem we're seeing is just with the head node.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I specify a particular IP address for the head
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node in the hostfile, it gets changed to the FQDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when displayed in the map. This is a problem for us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as we need to be able to match the two, and since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're not necessarily running on the head node, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't always do the same resolution you're doing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to use the same address that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified in the hostfile, or alternatively provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an XML attribute that contains this information?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 11, 2008, at 9:06 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not in that regard, depending upon what you mean by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "recently". The only changes I am aware of wrt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes consisted of some changes to the order in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which we use the nodes when specified by hostfile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or -host, and a little #if protectionism needed by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brian for the Cray port.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you seeing this for every node? Reason I ask: I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't offhand think of anything in the code base
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that would replace a host name with the FQDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we don't get that info for remote nodes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only exception is the head node (where mpirun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sits) - in that lone case, we default to the name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned to us by gethostname(). We do that because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the head node is frequently accessible on a more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global basis than the compute nodes - thus, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FQDN is required to ensure that there is no address
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusion on the network.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the user refers to compute nodes in a hostfile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or -host (or in an allocation from a resource
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager) by non-FQDN, we just assume they know what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are doing and the name will correctly resolve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a unique address.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Greg Watson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has there been a change in the behavior of the -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display-map option has changed recently in the 1.3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch. We're now seeing the host name as a fully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved DN rather than the entry that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified in the hostfile. Is there any particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason for this? If so, would it be possible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add the hostfile entry to the output since we need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be able to match the two?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> devel mailing list
>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> devel mailing list
>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel