[Beowulf] RE: Compare and contrast MPI implementations
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Leif Nixon nixon at nsc.liu.seFri Dec 16 08:40:15 PST 2005
- Previous message: [Beowulf] RE: Compare and contrast MPI implementations
- Next message: [Beowulf] RE: Compare and contrast MPI implementations
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
"Douglas Eadline" <deadline at clustermonkey.net> writes: >"David Mathog" <mathog at mendel.bio.caltech.edu> writes: >> Sort of the same problem though. lamboot (from lam-mpi) assumes >> that hboot is in the path. There's no time before it invokes >> hboot to run "modules". If there were a preceding stage in >> this instance just using an export statement with PATH would >> have done the trick. > > When I used modules in the past, there were environments set up for > compilers and MPIs. > > For instance if I wanted to run LAM/MPI compiled for the Intel Compiler, > > module load intel > module load lam/intel > > now I have a Intel compiler and LAM environment (compiled for intel). But it doesn't help for David's problem; that environment variables aren't passed across rsh. -- Leif Nixon - Systems expert ------------------------------------------------------------ National Supercomputer Centre - Linkoping University ------------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message: [Beowulf] RE: Compare and contrast MPI implementations
- Next message: [Beowulf] RE: Compare and contrast MPI implementations
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
