Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Open MPI User's mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] mixed versions of openmpi ? (1.4.1 and 1.4.3)
From: guillaume ranquet (guillaume.ranquet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-29 12:54:35


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I guess we will play it safe and upgrade every cluster at once so that
we won't get bad surprises.

thank you Jeff.
On 10/29/2010 06:40 PM, Reuti wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 29.10.2010 um 18:27 schrieb Jeff Squyres:
>
>> I'd have to go check 1.4.3 and 1.4.1 to be sure, but I would generally *NOT* assume that different versions like this are compatible.
>
> I'm getting confused, as these versions are exactly fitting "x.(y+1).*" which you mention below. So they should work together by design.
>
> -- Reuti
>
>
>> Open MPI makes an ABI promise (that started with version 1.3.2) that all the releases in a given feature series and its corresponding super-stable series (i.e., x.y.* and x.(y+1).*, where y is odd) are ABI compatible. But we make no guarantees about wire protocols being compatible, or other things like that.
>>
>> So in general, it's "pleasantly surprising" if the different releases work together, but I wouldn't rely on it *at all*. :-)
>>

If I get it well, ABI compatible means something compiled with x.y.*
will run on x.y+1.* without the need for you to recompile.
mixing x.y and x.y+1 on the same machinefile (and that's what we are
talking about) can only work by accident, not by design.

>>
>> On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:12 PM, guillaume ranquet wrote:
>>
> Hi list,
> I'm sorry to bother you with a stupid question.
>
> we intend to have for a short period of time, some nodes with 1.4.3 and
> others with 1.4.1 (before upgrading everyone to 1.4.3).
>
> I made various test and found both versions to be running together quite
> well with a mixed set of nodes.
>
> my tests were quite simple, I compiled and ran mpi hello_worlds with
> both versions.
> It wouldn't be serious for me to assume both versions fully compatible
> after these tests -and I must admit I lack the time and technical
> knowledge to run further testing.
>
> has anyone any insight on what have changed that would break compatibility?
> I guess nothing, since they are the same major.minor :)
>
>
> regards,
> Guillaume Ranquet.
>>>
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users_at_[hidden]
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Squyres
>> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
>> For corporate legal information go to:
>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users

> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMyvxLAAoJEEzIl7PMEAliTnoH/R4GhehUiFZo6eeSh/Rv9KJc
ZhAJIRTFH0z7+R2V4ggDyIWFVEv0mktQq/WEqQTbGNyVVvhWVFjCxrI7deZ+FkZS
EFv9oIlKM6gNR+cFdoN4xW4ZfiIoCTGddG6XOxLXkZQnhaG30s5UUmIuoBLvgQhb
mTq43WdEPpWsSuyMzo48hizT1PFqpPR101ITnIa2y4T5FC5QktJhbp85HbPaNE2Z
ej7kwXcgLEnTDk9wF4rZRah8vdIdtxwghwGhytVLqMFBCB4MR8hWMYTakJbIOt/7
GkFtOv0D7hruHhl9dNk+o8VyHMQq6bzlqs3UdQxW1Hx1N2w0ngHK6fzfUnYRVVY=
=TsJh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----