On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:10:03PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Andrey Slepuhin wrote:
[snip]
>
> My first reaction is that instead of tweaking LAM itself, you might want
> to play with your IP routes similar to what the University of Toronto did
> with their cluster (similar to yours: 2 NICs in each box). In such a
> configuration, the OS is responsible for figuring out which NIC to talk
> though, and LAM doesn't need to know anything about it. Toronto did a
> variation on the University of Kentucky's work on Flat Neighborhood
> Networks (FNNs). You might want to look up their work (www.aggregate.org)
> for some pointers.
>
> Hope this helps...
I read their articles, but it seems that they solve another problem: having
multiple interfaces and multiple switches how to route packet depending on
destination address. But I want to do the following: having only one switch
and two network interfaces on each node I want to attach each of two MPI
processes running on a node to separate network interface to avoid collisions
while keeping shmem communicztion between processes on a same node.
Regards,
Andrey.
--
A right thing should be simple (tm)
|
