[GE users] Loose vs. tight MPICH integration

davide cittaro daweonline at gmail.com
Tue Apr 18 10:32:04 BST 2006

    [ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-10" character set.  ]
    [ Some special characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

As written in the howto page, using tight integration you have correct
accounting and processes/directories controlled by SGE, definitely
removed at the end of the job, while if you only enable loose
integration, processes are started but they are under LAM daemons
control only...


On 4/18/06, Duong Ta <duongtnb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear,
> Anyone could tell me the differences in the procedures for loose and tight
> integration of MPICH to SGE v6? I've noticed there're a few differences as
> below:
> - Tight integration: we have the -catch_rsh for startmpi.sh. Loose
> integration doesn't have.
> - Tight integration: control slave = true, job is first task = false. The
> opposites are applied for loose integration
> However, when I check the output of "ps -e f -o pid,ppid,pgrp,command", it
> seems that there were no difference in running MPI jobs under loose or tight
> SGE integration. That means in both cases, I've always noticed that the MPI
> jobs were under the control of sge_shepherd. The resource usage e.g., CPU
> was also correctly reflected in both loose and tight integration.
> Any suggestions?
> Best regards,
> Duong

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." -
Niels Bohr

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe at gridengine.sunsource.net
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at gridengine.sunsource.net

More information about the gridengine-users mailing list