Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's 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 users] Working with a CellBlade cluster
From: Mi Yan (miyan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-31 16:07:23


Gilbert,

      I did not know the MCA parameters that can monitor the message
passing. I have tried a few MCA verbose parameters and did not identify
anyone helpful.

     One way to check if the message goes via IB or SM maybe to check the
counters in /sys/class/infiniband.

Regards,
Mi

                                                                           
             Gilbert
             Grosdidier
             <grodid_at_mail.cern To
             .ch> Open MPI Users <users_at_[hidden]>
             Sent by: cc
             users-bounces_at_ope
             n-mpi.org Subject
                                       Re: [OMPI users] Working with a
                                       CellBlade cluster
             10/29/2008 12:36
             PM
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to
              Open MPI Users
             <users_at_open-mpi.o
                    rg>
                                                                           
                                                                           

Thank you very much Mi and Lenny for your detailed replies.

 I believe I can summarize the infos to allow for
'Working with a QS22 CellBlade cluster' like this:
- Yes, messages are efficiently handled with "-mca btl openib,sm,self"
- Better to go to the OMPI-1.3 version ASAP
- It is currently more efficient/easy to use numactl to control
processor affinity on a QS22.

 So far so good.

 One question remains: how could I monitor in details message passing
thru IB (on one side) and thru SM (on the other side) thru the use of mca
parameters, please ? Additionnal info about the verbosity level
of this monitoring will be highly appreciated ... A lengthy travel
inside the list of such parameters provided by ompi_info did not
enlighten me (there are so many xxx_sm_yyy type params that I don't know
which
could be the right one ;-)

 Thanks in advance for your hints, Best Regards, Gilbert.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Mi Yan wrote:

>
> 1. MCA BTL parameters
> With "-mca btl openib,self", both message between two Cell processors on
> one QS22 and messages between two QS22s go through IB.
>
> With "-mca btl openib,sm,slef", message on one QS22 go through shared
> memory, message between QS22 go through IB,
>
> Depending on the message size and other MCA parameters, it does not
> guarantee message passing on shared memory is faster than on IB. E.g.
> the bandwidth for 64KB message is 959MB/s on shared-memory and is 694MB/s
> on IB; the bandwidth for 4MB message is 539 MB/s and 1092 MB/s on IB.
> The bandwidth of 4MB message on shared memory may be higher if you tune
> some MCA parameter.
>
> 2. mpi_paffinity_alone
> "mpi_paffinity_alone =1" is not a good choice for QS22. There are two
> sockets with two physical Cell/B.E. on one QS22. Each Cell/B.E. has two
> SMT threads. So there are four logical CPUs on one QS22. CBE Linux
> kernel maps logical cpu 0 and 1 to socket1 and maps logical cpu 1 and 2
to
> socket 2. If mpi_paffinity_alone is set to 1, the two MPI instances
> will be assigned to logical cpu 0 and cpu 1 on socket 1. I believe this
is
> not what you want.
>
> A temporaily solution to force the affinity on QS22 is to use
> "numactl", E.g. assuming the hostname is "qs22" and the executable is
> "foo". the following command can be used
> mpirun -np 1 -H qs22 numactl -c0 -m0 foo : -np 1 -H
qs22
> numactl -c1 -m1 foo
>
> In the long run, I wish CBE kernel export CPU topology in /sys and
> use PLPA to force the processor affinity.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mi
>
>
>
>
> "Lenny
> Verkhovsky"
> <lenny.verkhovsky
To
> @gmail.com> "Open MPI Users"
> Sent by: <users_at_[hidden]>
> users-bounces_at_ope
cc
> n-mpi.org
>
Subject
> Re: [OMPI users] Working with a
> 10/23/2008 05:48 CellBlade cluster
> AM
>
>
> Please respond to
> Open MPI Users
> <users_at_open-mpi.o
> rg>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> If I understand you correctly the most suitable way to do it is by
> paffinity that we have in Open MPI 1.3 and the trank.
> how ever usually OS is distributing processes evenly between sockets by
it
> self.
>
> There still no formal FAQ due to a multiple reasons but you can read how
to
> use it in the attached scratch ( there were few name changings of the
> params, so check with ompi_info )
>
> shared memory is used between processes that share same machine, and
openib
> is used between different machines ( hostnames ), no special mca params
are
> needed.
>
> Best Regards
> Lenny,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Gilbert Grosdidier
<grodid_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> Working with a CellBlade cluster (QS22), the requirement is to have
one
> instance of the executable running on each socket of the blade (there
are
> 2
> sockets). The application is of the 'domain decomposition' type, and
each
> instance is required to often send/receive data with both the remote
> blades and
> the neighbor socket.
>
> Question is : which specification must be used for the mca btl
component
> to force 1) shmem type messages when communicating with this neighbor
> socket,
> while 2) using openib to communicate with the remote blades ?
> Is '-mca btl sm,openib,self' suitable for this ?
>
> Also, which debug flags could be used to crosscheck that the messages
> are
> _actually_ going thru the right channel for a given channel, please ?
>
> We are currently using OpenMPI 1.2.5 shipped with RHEL5.2 (ppc64).
> Which version do you think is currently the most optimised for these
> processors and problem type ? Should we go towards OpenMPI 1.2.8
> instead ?
> Or even try some OpenMPI 1.3 nightly build ?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help, Gilbert.
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
> (See attached file: RANKS_FAQ.doc)
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users

--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
  Gilbert Grosdidier                 Gilbert.Grosdidier_at_[hidden]
  LAL / IN2P3 / CNRS                 Phone : +33 1 6446 8909
  Faculté des Sciences, Bat. 200     Fax   : +33 1 6446 8546
  B.P. 34, F-91898 Orsay Cedex (FRANCE)
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users_at_[hidden]
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users




graycol.gif
pic09046.gif
ecblank.gif