On Jan 31, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Josh Hursey wrote:
> For the visualization it would be really nice to see how well tested a
> particular interconnect, resource manager, and/or 'feature' is when
> ramping up to a release. However these peices of information are hard
> to obtain, and in some cases quantify (e.g., what do we mean by
> testing a 'feature'?).
> Thinking about this it occurred to me that what we really need is for
> OMPI to tell MTT what it is doing for some of these cases.
> Two examples, MTT cannot tell:
> - which set of compile time options are enabled/disabled
> e.g. [ "./configure --with-foo" vs "./configure"]
Yes, this could be done.
> - which BTL(s) or MTL are used to run a test
> e.g. [ "mpirun -mca btl tcp,self foo" vs. "mpirun foo"]
Don't we offer this in a limited way right now with the "network"
field in the MPI details section? I think we hesitated to put OMPI-
specific semantics on that field -- e.g., whether you're using the MX
BTL or MTL is an OMPI issue; you're still using the MX protocol/network.
I suppose we could agument those strings in the OMPI case: mx:mtl and
mx:btl, for example.
So to be clear: does the network field not give you what you need?
> For the configure options we *could* parse the config.log to extract
> this data. The question is, if we did this, what do we want to look?
> And is this something we want to do? Is there another way?
I think having a network-like field for the MPI install section might
be good, and possibly have an OMPI:: funclet to automatically do the
parsing. But we need to be mindful of MPIs that won't have a
configure script, so what information goes there might be dubious (or
> For the BTL(s)/MTL this is a much more subtle question since this
> depends on the connectivity of the interfaces on a machine, and the
> runtime selection logic. If we added a parameter to mpirun (e.g. "--
> showme connectivity") that displayed connectivity information to
> stdout (or a file) would this be useful? What should it look like?
Ya, this is on my to-do list. IB CM stuff in the openib BTL has been
consuming my time recently (much more complicated than I originally
thought); I swear I'll be getting to the connectivity map issue before
> We have talked about some of this in the past, but I could not find a
> Bug talking about it in MTT.
> What do you think about this?
> mtt-devel mailing list