On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Bogdan Costescu <bcostescu_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Ralph Castain <rhc_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Tracking this down has reminded me of all the reasons why I despise the
> rankfile mapper... :-/
> Thanks for all your efforts ! I'm using the rankfile mapper as this is
> the documented (in the FAQ) affinity-related one at least for the
> stable series. If there's a better way which I've missed, I'd be eager
> to learn...
It depends on what you are trying to do. Rankfile is really only useful if
you need to specify rank-by-rank precise bindings. Otherwise, you can
specify bind-to-core or bind-to-socket to get a more general automatic
binding pattern. You can also specify cores-per-task and get each process
bound to the specified number of cores.
So there are a lot of options, including rankfile. Unfortunately, I see that
these options are not documented on the FAQ or the wiki. :-/
Take a look at "man mpirun" and you'll see more info about all this in the
part on process binding options.
> > I have created a fix for this mess and will submit it for inclusion in
> I've applied to a 1.4.1 tree the patches from tickets #2318 and #2321
> and I can confirm that both problems reported earlier are fixed.
Thanks - appreciate the confirmation!
> > Thanks - not your fault, so pardon the comments. Just had my fill of this
> particular code since the creators of it no longer support it.
> No offense taken :-) I appreciate your efforts and I understand your
> frustration about unmaintaned code. Thanks again !
> devel mailing list