% df /tmp
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
- 12330084 822848 11507236 7% /
% df /
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
- 12330084 822848 11507236 7% /
That works out to 11GB. But...
The compute nodes have 24GB. Freshly booted, about 3.2GB is
consumed by the kernel, various services, and the root file system.
At this time, usage of /tmp is essentially nil.
We set user memory limits to 20GB.
I would imagine that the size of the session directories depends on a
number of factors; perhaps the developers can comment on that. I have
only seen total sizes in the 10s of MBs on our 8-node, 24GB nodes.
As long as they're removed after each job, they don't really compete
with the application for available memory.
On 11/3/11 8:40 PM, Ed Blosch wrote:
Thanks very much, exactly what I wanted to hear. How big is /tmp?
-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces@open-mpi.org [mailto:users-bounces@open-mpi.org] On
Behalf Of David Turner
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 6:36 PM
To: users@open-mpi.org
Subject: Re: [OMPI users] EXTERNAL: Re: How to set up state-less node /tmp
for OpenMPI usage
I'm not a systems guy, but I'll pitch in anyway. On our cluster,
all the compute nodes are completely diskless. The root file system,
including /tmp, resides in memory (ramdisk). OpenMPI puts these
session directories therein. All our jobs run through a batch
system (torque). At the conclusion of each batch job, an epilogue
process runs that removes all files belonging to the owner of the
current batch job from /tmp (and also looks for and kills orphan
processes belonging to the user). This epilogue had to written
by our systems staff.
I believe this is a fairly common configuration for diskless
clusters.
On 11/3/11 4:09 PM, Blosch, Edwin L wrote:
Thanks for the help. A couple follow-up-questions, maybe this starts togo outside OpenMPI:
that this was not a safe place.
What's wrong with using /dev/shm? I think you said earlier in this thread
appear in the filesystem for a stateless node? How big would it be, given
If the NFS-mount point is moved from /tmp to /work, would a /tmp magically
that there is no local disk, right? That may be something I have to ask the
vendor, which I've tried, but they don't quite seem to get the question.
Behalf Of Ralph Castain
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces@open-mpi.org [mailto:users-bounces@open-mpi.org] On
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 5:22 PMfor OpenMPI usage
To: Open MPI Users
Subject: Re: [OMPI users] EXTERNAL: Re: How to set up state-less node /tmp
loss if you don't use the sm btl? Why would it exist if there is a wholly
On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Blosch, Edwin L wrote:
I might be missing something here. Is there a side-effect or performance
equivalent alternative? What happens to traffic that is intended for
another process on the same node?
what Eugene suggested if you care about performance.
There is a definite performance impact, and we wouldn't recommend doing
/tmp NFS mounted across multiple nodes is a major "faux pas" in the Linux
The correct solution here is get your sys admin to make /tmp local. Making
world - it should never be done, for the reasons stated by Jeff.
Behalf Of Eugene Loh
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces@open-mpi.org [mailto:users-bounces@open-mpi.org] On
/tmp for OpenMPI usageSent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 1:23 PM
To: users@open-mpi.org
Subject: Re: [OMPI users] EXTERNAL: Re: How to set up state-less node
session file on /tmp, which is NFS-mounted and thus not a good choice.
Right. Actually "--mca btl ^sm". (Was missing "btl".)
On 11/3/2011 11:19 AM, Blosch, Edwin L wrote:
I don't tell OpenMPI what BTLs to use. The default uses sm and puts a
Behalf Of Eugene Loh
Are you suggesting something like --mca ^sm?
-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces@open-mpi.org [mailto:users-bounces@open-mpi.org] On
/tmp for OpenMPI usageSent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 12:54 PM
To: users@open-mpi.org
Subject: Re: [OMPI users] EXTERNAL: Re: How to set up state-less node
_______________________________________________
I've not been following closely. Why must one use shared-memory
communications? How about using other BTLs in a "loopback" fashion?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
users mailing list
users@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users