Intel® MPI Library
Get help with building, analyzing, optimizing, and scaling high-performance computing (HPC) applications.
Announcements
FPGA community forums and blogs on community.intel.com are migrating to the new Altera Community and are read-only. For urgent support needs during this transition, please visit the FPGA Design Resources page or contact an Altera Authorized Distributor.
2275 Discussions

mpiexec is ignoring the no. of processes after each hostname in the hostfile

YaDev
Novice
1,151 Views

Running MPI using a hostfile like this 

mpiexec -f hostfile executable

The hostfile has the content, for example

host1:4

host2:2

but MPI just runs the maximum number of processes on each host. It just completely ignore the process numbers in the hostfile??

 

 

0 Kudos
1 Solution
YaDev
Novice
965 Views

Understandable that this is low priority. It is just a suggestion but thanks!

View solution in original post

0 Kudos
5 Replies
TobiasK
Moderator
1,145 Views

@YaDev 
You are using the hostfile option while you need the machine file option. A hostfile does not contain the number of slots available, only the machinefile contains this information.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/controlling-process-placement-with-the-intel-mpi-library.html

mpirun -machinefile hostfile executable
0 Kudos
YaDev
Novice
1,134 Views

Oh ok thank you!

0 Kudos
YaDev
Novice
1,050 Views

Hello again,

Would Intel not consider instead of having this -machinefile flag, just merge it into the hostfile under the -f flag just like what MPICH is doing? There is no reason to have this separate -machinefile flag, right?

 

With just the -f hostfile to list

Example 1)

host1

host2

host3

...

 

Example 2)

host1:3

host2

host3:5

...

 

The -machinefile is just quite redundant IMHO. 

 

0 Kudos
TobiasK
Moderator
1,013 Views

Hi,
I was not aware that machinefile and hostfile are the same for MPICH, however, other implementations also have this differentiation. I will bring you feedback to the developers but I do not expect that we change the behavior due to backwards combability issues.

0 Kudos
YaDev
Novice
966 Views

Understandable that this is low priority. It is just a suggestion but thanks!

0 Kudos
Reply