[mpich-discuss] MPI memory allocation.

Anatoly G anatolyrishon at gmail.com
Tue Dec 31 05:55:15 CST 2013 

Hi.
Do you success to reproduce problem?

Regards,
Anatoly.


On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Anatoly G <anatolyrishon at gmail.com> wrote:

> In addition to previous mail.
> I got some report improvements.
> Now program fails faster.
> Program fails with report in shell:
> Assertion failed in file src/mpid/ch3/channels/nemesis/src/ch3_progress.c
> at line 640: pkt->type >= 0 && pkt->type < MPIDI_NEM_PKT_END
> internal ABORT - process 0
> More errors in out*.log files.
> In new version *no fail* with 10 processes, but fails with 20.
>
> execute command:
> mpiexec.hydra -genvall -f MpiConfigMachines1.txt -launcher=rsh -n 20
> /home/anatol-g/Grape/release_under_constr_MPI_tests_quantum/bin/linux64/rhe6/g++4.4.6/debug/mpi_rcv_any_multithread
> 100000 1000000 -1 -1 1 out
>
> Please help,
>
> Regards,
> Anatoly.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Anatoly G <anatolyrishon at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Good morning.
>> I hope that I understand you.
>> I changed my test program to print network rate (not real network rate,
>> but pure data rate after finish each send or receive).
>> My application fails before finishing execution. I attach my program, and
>> the results. No core file created. I use unlimit option, then fails of my
>> programs cause core file creation.
>>
>> execute command:
>> mpiexec.hydra -genvall -f MpiConfigMachines1.txt -launcher=rsh -n 10
>> /home/anatol-g/Grape/release_under_constr_MPI_tests_quantum/bin/linux64/rhe6/g++4.4.6/debug/mpi_rcv_any_multithread
>> 100000 1000000 -1 -1 1 out
>>
>> Can you please advice. I completely don't understand why program fails.
>> If anything is not clear, please reply and I will try to complete my
>> explanation.
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Anatoly.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have no idea what I need to do with your benchmark since you are
>>> relying on an external tool to give performance debugging information.
>>>  FWIW, there will be a memory increase in MPI_Init.  That’s expected and
>>> not bad.  If you post a bunch of isends, some of them get buffered locally,
>>> while others have to wait for the necessary flow-control.  So it might look
>>> like your network performance has dropped.  Again, this is expected.  I
>>> don’t know if these are what you are seeing or if it’s a different problem.
>>> But I can’t tell from your benchmark.
>>>
>>> It might be easier for us if your application does internal profiling of
>>> memory and communication and printed it out directly.  That way, I know
>>> what you are measuring more accurately.
>>>
>>>   — Pavan
>>>
>>> On Dec 23, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Anatoly G <anatolyrishon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi.
>>> > Do you need more info to reproduce problem?
>>> >
>>> > Anatoly.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Anatoly G <anatolyrishon at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Good morning Pavan.
>>> > Do you see process memory raise & network throughput low behavior?
>>> >
>>> > Anatoly.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Anatoly G <anatolyrishon at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > No. You can see memory increase using monitor like "qps", or any other.
>>> > The stack trace that I send I get when I stop my real program (not
>>> simulation) with TotalView debugger.
>>> > if you monitor network traffic, you will see network speed which
>>> becomes low until it reaches almost 0.
>>> >
>>> > Anatoly.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Are you printing it out?
>>> >
>>> >   — Pavan
>>> >
>>> > On Dec 19, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Anatoly G <anatolyrishon at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Can you please remove comment from section
>>> > > /*
>>> > >         // swap tag & enter blocked recv
>>> > >         MPI_Status stat;
>>> > >         tags[slaveIdx] = (tags[slaveIdx] == TAG1) ? TAG2 : TAG1;
>>> > >         MPI_Recv(RcvBufs[slaveIdx], BUF_SZ, MPI::CHAR, slaveRank,
>>> tags[slaveIdx], MPI_COMM_WORLD, &stat);
>>> > >
>>> > >         ++SlavesRcvIters[slaveIdx];
>>> > > */
>>> > >
>>> > > And then run it.
>>> > > Do you see memory allocation increase?
>>> > >
>>> > > Regards,
>>> > > Anatoly.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > I’m not sure what I should look for.  I ran the program and it
>>> completed fine.
>>> > >
>>> > >   — Pavan
>>> > >
>>> > > On Dec 19, 2013, at 7:16 PM, Anatoly G <anatolyrishon at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Good afternoon.
>>> > > > My program enters a lot to attached stack functions.
>>> > > > Can you please explain if it's ok?
>>> > > > Did you success to execute simulation from previous mail.
>>> > > > Did you see the memory raise when MPI_Recv not in comments?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Regards,
>>> > > > Anatoly.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Anatoly G <
>>> anatolyrishon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > Hi.
>>> > > > Finally, I got an additional info.
>>> > > > I build short simulation of my real application.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The short description of real scenario.
>>> > > > I have Master + N slaves. Each slave sends to Master 2 types of
>>> messages:
>>> > > >       • constant length message with predefined fields (one of
>>> it's fields is length of second message).
>>> > > >       • second message - length of this message each time is
>>> different and passed in first message.
>>> > > > Master should use MPI_Irecv commands, in order to be tolerant to
>>> slaves failure (blocked MPI_Recv is blocking Master in the failure case).
>>> > > > Master executes MPI_Irecv to each slave with buffer size equal to
>>> the constant size of first message type. After receiving first type of
>>> message, Master allocates expected buffer for second message and performs
>>> receive too. This happens in endless loop for each slaves. I use
>>> MPI_Waitany to monitor all receives.
>>> > > > In order to separate messages Master & slaves use different tags
>>> (as ids) for first & second messages.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Simulation description:
>>> > > > All passed buffers (first & second) have the same size.
>>> > > > Slave (SndSyncSlave) sends messages and swaps 2 tags between them
>>> (like 2 types of messages, but second one has constant size too).
>>> > > > Master routine (Rcv_WaitAny function) executes MPI_Irecv for first
>>> message, and after receive executes MPI_Irecv for the second one.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In this scenario: 5 processes works fine, but if I execute 20
>>> processes and remove comment from line "usleep(200000)"  I see 800 Mbit/s
>>> on network at the test beginning, but after 1-2 second network speed become
>>> 200-300Kbit/s and not increased back any more.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > If I add MPI_Recv block in Master (remove comment from "MPI_Recv"
>>> and line around) I see that Master starts increase memory as my real
>>> application, but again on 5 processes this not happens. This is scenario
>>> used in my real application.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Command line: mpiexec.hydra -genvall -f MpiConfigMachines.txt
>>> -launcher=ssh -n 20 mpi_rcv_any_multithread 100000 1000000 out
>>> > > >
>>> > > > where
>>> > > > 100000 - number of sends from each slave
>>> > > > 1000000 - scale to separate input from each scale (used for debug
>>> only)
>>> > > > out - prefix of output file. Each process produce out_"rank".txt
>>> file.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > MpiConfigMachines.txt - configuration file for my computers, 2
>>> computers back to back 1 Gbit/s network.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Can you please test this case, and give me yours suggestions.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thank you,
>>> > > > Anatoly.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Anatoly G <anatolyrishon at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > > Yes, I understand that. I"ll try to make my stand alone test
>>> closer to real application. Thank you.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > It sounds like MPICH is working correctly.  Without a test case,
>>> it’s unfortunately quite hard for us to even know what to look for.  It’s
>>> also possible that there’s a bug in your code which might be causing some
>>> bad behavior.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >   — Pavan
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Anatoly G <anatolyrishon at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Yes, I"m actually need Fault tolerance, and it was the main
>>> reason for choosing MPICH2. I use fault tolerance for unpredictable bugs in
>>> the future. My system should survive partially. But in the regular case I
>>> just need full performance. I"m suspect that I don't use MPI correctly, but
>>> on slow rate everything works fine. The fail caused by increasing rate of
>>> MPI_Isend or increasing data buffer size. I didn't find yet any strong
>>> dependence, only main stream.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Unfortunately I have a complex system which has a number of
>>> threads in each process. Part of the threads use different communicators.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I try to simulate the same MPI behavior in simple stand alone
>>> test, but stand alone test works fine. It shows a full network performance,
>>> when I slow down master (on stand alone test), all slaves are stopped too
>>> and are waiting for master to continue. Can I open any MPICH log to send
>>> you the results?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Do you actually need Fault Tolerance (one of your previous
>>> emails seemed to indicate that)?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > It sounds like there a bug in either your application or in the
>>> MPICH stack and you are trying to trace that down, and don’t really care
>>> about fault tolerance.  Is that a correct assessment?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Do you have a simplified program that reproduces this error,
>>> that we can try?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >   — Pavan
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Anatoly G <anatolyrishon at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > No. Hardware is Ok. Master process  allocates memory (check
>>> with MemoryScape doesn't show any sufficient memory allocation in my code).
>>> Then network traffic become low, and then Master process crashes w/o saving
>>> core file. I have unlimited size of core files. The same fail (w/o core) I
>>> see when I call MPI_Abort, but I don't call it.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Wesley Bland <
>>> wbland at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>> > > > > > Are you actually seeing hardware failure or is your code just
>>> crashing? It's odd that one specific process would fail so often in the
>>> same way if it were a hardware problem.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Thanks,
>>> > > > > > Wesley
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:15 AM, Anatoly G <
>>> anatolyrishon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >> One more interesting fact. Each time I have a failure, the
>>> fails only master process, but slaves are still exists together with
>>> mpiexec.hydra. I thought that slaves should fail too, but slaves are live.
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Anatoly G <
>>> anatolyrishon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > >> I configure MPICH-3.1rc2 build w/o "so" files. But instead of
>>> MPICH2 & MPICH-3.0.4 I get so files. What should I change in configure line
>>> to link MPI with my application statically.
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Pavan Balaji <
>>> balaji at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> Can you try mpich-3.1rc2?  There were several fixes for this
>>> in this version and it’ll be good to try that out before we go digging too
>>> far into this.
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >>   — Pavan
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 1:46 AM, Anatoly G <
>>> anatolyrishon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> > With MPICH - 3.0.4 the situation repeated. It looks like
>>> MPI allocates memory for messages.
>>> > > > > >> > Can you please advice about scenario when MPI or may be TCP
>>> under MPI allocates memory due to high transfer rate?
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Anatoly G <
>>> anatolyrishon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > >> > Thank you very much.
>>> > > > > >> > Issend - is not so good, It can't support me Fault
>>> tolerance. If slave process fails, the master stall.
>>> > > > > >> > I tried mpich-3.0.4 with hydra-3.0.4 but my program which
>>> uses MPI Fault tolerance doesn't recognize failure of slave process, but
>>> recognizes failure with MPICH2. May be you can suggest solution?
>>> > > > > >> > I tried to use hydra from MPICH2 but link my program with
>>> MPICH3. This combination recognizes failures, but I"m not sure that such
>>> combination is stable enough.
>>> > > > > >> > Can you please advice?
>>> > > > > >> > Anatoly.
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Pavan Balaji <
>>> balaji at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > As much as I hate saying this — some people find it easier
>>> to think of it as “MPICH3”.
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> >   — Pavan
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > On Dec 7, 2013, at 7:37 AM, Wesley Bland <
>>> wbland at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > > MPICH is just the new version of MPICH2. We renamed it
>>> when we went past version 3.0.
>>> > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > >> > > On Dec 7, 2013, at 3:55 AM, Anatoly G <
>>> anatolyrishon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > >> > >> Ok. I"ll try both Issend, and next step to upgrade MPICH
>>> to 3.0.4.
>>> > > > > >> > >> I thought before that MPICH & MPICH2 are two different
>>> branches, when MPICH2 partially supports Fault tolerance, but MPICH not.
>>> Now I understand, that I was wrong and MPICH2 is just main version of MPICH.
>>> > > > > >> > >>
>>> > > > > >> > >> Thank you very much,
>>> > > > > >> > >> Anatoly.
>>> > > > > >> > >>
>>> > > > > >> > >>
>>> > > > > >> > >>
>>> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Rajeev Thakur <
>>> thakur at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>> > > > > >> > >> The master is receiving too many incoming messages than
>>> it can match quickly enough with Irecvs. Try using MPI_Issend instead of
>>> MPI_Isend.
>>> > > > > >> > >>
>>> > > > > >> > >> Rajeev
>>> > > > > >> > >>
>>> > > > > >> > >> On Dec 5, 2013, at 2:58 AM, Anatoly G <
>>> anatolyrishon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > >> > >>
>>> > > > > >> > >> > Hello.
>>> > > > > >> > >> > I"m using MPICH2 1.5.
>>> > > > > >> > >> > My system contains master and 16 slaves.
>>> > > > > >> > >> > System uses number of communicators.
>>> > > > > >> > >> > The single communicator used for below scenario:
>>> > > > > >> > >> > Each slave sends non-stop 2Kbyte data buffer using
>>> MPI_Isend and waits using MPI_Wait.
>>> > > > > >> > >> > Master starts with MPI_Irecv to each slave
>>> > > > > >> > >> > Then in endless loop:
>>> > > > > >> > >> > MPI_Waitany and MPI_Irecv on rank returned by
>>> MPI_Waitany.
>>> > > > > >> > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > >> > Another communicator used for broadcast communication
>>> (commands between master + slaves),
>>> > > > > >> > >> > but it's not used in parallel with previous
>>> communicator,
>>> > > > > >> > >> > only before or after data transfer.
>>> > > > > >> > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > >> > The system executed on two computers linked by 1Gbit/s
>>> Ethernet.
>>> > > > > >> > >> > Master executed on first computer, all slaves on other
>>> one.
>>> > > > > >> > >> > Network traffic is ~800Mbit/s.
>>> > > > > >> > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > >> > After 1-2 minutes of execution, master process starts
>>> to increase it's memory allocation and network traffic becomes low.
>>> > > > > >> > >> > This memory allocation & network traffic slow down
>>> continues until fail of MPI,
>>> > > > > >> > >> > without core file save.
>>> > > > > >> > >> > My program doesn't allocate memory. Can you please
>>> explain this behaviour.
>>> > > > > >> > >> > How can I cause MPI to stop sending slaves if Master
>>> can't serve such traffic, instead of memory allocation and fail?
>>> > > > > >> > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > >> > Thank you,
>>> > > > > >> > >> > Anatoly.
>>> > > > > >> > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > >> > P.S.
>>> > > > > >> > >> > On my stand alone test, I simulate similar behaviour,
>>> but with single thread on each process (master & hosts).
>>> > > > > >> > >> > When I start stand alone test, master stops slaves
>>> until it completes accumulated data processing and MPI doesn't increase
>>> memory allocation.
>>> > > > > >> > >> > When Master is free slaves continue to send data.
>>> > > > > >> > >> > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > >> > >> > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > > >> > >> > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > > >> > >> > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > > > > >> > >>
>>> > > > > >> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > >> > >> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > > >> > >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > > >> > >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > > > > >> > >>
>>> > > > > >> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > >> > >> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > > >> > >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > > >> > >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > >> > > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > > >> > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > > >> > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > --
>>> > > > > >> > Pavan Balaji
>>> > > > > >> > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > >> > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > > >> > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > > >> > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > >> > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > >> > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > > >> > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > > >> > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> --
>>> > > > > >> Pavan Balaji
>>> > > > > >> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > >> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > > >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > > >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > >> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > > >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > > >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > --
>>> > > > > Pavan Balaji
>>> > > > > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --
>>> > > > Pavan Balaji
>>> > > > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
>>> > > >
>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > <backtrace2.txt>_______________________________________________
>>> > > > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Pavan Balaji
>>> > > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
>>> > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Pavan Balaji
>>> > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pavan Balaji
>>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpich.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131231/b4733c1f/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list