Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

From: George Bosilca (bosilca_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-07 12:42:43

I still wonder why we need any configuration "magic". We don't want
to be the only one around supporting IPv4 OR IPv6. Supporting both of
them simultaneously can be interesting, and it does not require huge
changes. In fact, we have a problem only at the connection step,
everything else will be identically.

In fact, as we're talking about the TCP layer, we might want to
finish the discussion we had a while ago, about merging the OOB and
the BTL in one component. They do have very similar functions, and
right now we have to maintain 2 components. I think it's more than
time to do the merge, and move the resulting component or whatever
down in the OPAL layer.

I even volunteer for that. Next week I will be away, so I will come
back with a design for the phone conference on ... well beginning of


On Sep 7, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Ralph H Castain wrote:

> Jeff and I talked about this for awhile this morning, and we both
> agree
> (yes, I did change my mind after we discussed all the
> ramifications). It
> appears that we should be able to consolidate the code into a single
> component with the right configuration system "magic" - and that would
> definitely be preferable.
> My primary concern originally was with the lack of knowledge and
> documentation on the configuration system. I know that I don't know
> enough
> about that system to make everything work in a single component. The
> component method would have allowed you to remain ignorant of that
> system.
> However, with Jeff's willingness to help in that regard, the
> approach he
> recommends would be easier for everyone.
> Hope that doesn't cause too much of a problem.
> Ralph
> On 9/7/06 9:46 AM, "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 9/1/06 12:21 PM, "Adrian Knoth" <adi_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 07:01:25AM -0600, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>> Do you agree to go on with two oob components, tcp and tcp6?
>>>> Yes, I think that's the right approach
>>> It's a deal. ;)
>> Actually, I would disagree here (sorry for jumping in late! :-( ).
>> Given the amount of code duplication, it seems like a big shame to
>> make a
>> separate component that is almost identical.
>> Can we just have one component that handles both ivp4 and ivp6?
>> Appropriate
>> #if's can be added (I'm willing to help with the configure.m4 mojo
>> -- the
>> stuff to tell OMPI whether ipv4 and/or ipv6 stuff can be found and
>> to set
>> the #define's appropriately).
>> More specifically -- I can help with component / configure / build
>> system
>> issues. I'll defer on the whole how-to-wire-them-up issue for the
>> moment
>> (I've got some other fires burning that must be tended to :-\ ).
>> My $0.02: OOB is the first target to get working -- once you can
>> orterun
>> non-MPI apps properly across ipv6 and/or ipv4 nodes, then move on
>> to the MPI
>> layer and take the same approach there (e.g., one TCP btl with
>> configure.m4
>> mojo, etc.).
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]

"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other
half may reach you"
                                   Kahlil Gibran