[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...

d

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
>


--
dawe
http://dawe.ilbello.com
---
"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