On Feb 4, 2013, at 2:03 PM, George Bosilca <bosilca_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> The two behaviors you describe for include and exclude do not look conflicting to me. Inclusion is a strong request, the user enforce the usage of a specific interface. If the interface is not available, then we have a problem. Exclude on the other side, must enforce that a specific interface is not in use, fact that can be quite simple if the interface is not available.
I still maintain that it's equally disastrous if you don't exclude the correct interfaces (I lost 2 nights of MTT because of this!).
> I'm not a fan of the nowarn option. Seems like a lot of code with limited interest, especially if we only plan to support it in TCP.
This is a good point -- I wonder what openib (and others?) do who support *_if_include and *_if_exclude notation. Do they warn / error if you specify an invalid interface?
> If you need specialized arguments for some of your nodes here is what I do: rename the binaries to .orig, and use the original name to create a sh script that will change the value of mca_param_files to something based on the host name (if such a file exists) and then call the .orig executable. Works like a charm., even when a batch scheduler is used.
That will still be quite difficult to do in MTT. Remember: all the tests that are run in MTT are shared across all of us via the ompi-tests SVN repo. Are you suggesting that I alias every test in the ompi-tests SVN with a public script that you should run that should look for some site-specific MCA override param file?
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/