On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Håkon Bugge wrote:
> Hmm, are all pairs going through the spine? If not, look up the parking-lot
> problem. Håkon
i believe all the pairs do pass through a spine. i'm not familiar
with the "parking-lot problem", i'll google it, but suspect a
bazillion hits will c
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:49:57AM -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> Huh, Intel (PathScale/QLogic) has shipped a NxN debugging program for
> more than a decade. The first vendor I recall shipping such a program
> was Microway. I guess it takes a while for good practices to spread
> throughout our commu
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:38 AM, John Hearns wrote:
>> Also have you run ibdiagnet to see if anything is flagged up?
>
> i've run a multitude of ib diags on the machines, but nothing is popping out
> as wrong. what's weird is that it's only certain pairing of machines not any
> one machine in
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:30:09AM -0400, Michael Di Domenico wrote:
> > Also have you run ibdiagnet to see if anything is flagged up?
>
> i've run a multitude of ib diags on the machines, but nothing is
> popping out as wrong. what's weird is that it's only certain pairing
> of machines not an
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:32 AM, John Hearns wrote:
> I would say the usual tool for that pair-wise comparison is Intel IBM
> https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-mpi-benchmarks
> I hope I have got your requirement correct!
John,
Close, but not exact. IMB will test ranks, but will no
does anyone have any mpi code that checks for slow pairs between mpi
ranks. and no i don't me a micro benchmark that i can run a bunch of
times and tabulate the results.
i mean a program i can submit with a bunch of ranks and have it test
the throughput between each and spit out a result for all
