Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 23:04:32 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: MPI vs. --fork On 30 Apr, 2013, at 16:33 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote: > My goal is to have MPI and -fork so very similar that a forked run can be resumed with MPI, or vice versa. The contest branch was almost there. I will start this for real tomorrow but here are some loose plans: This will happen when an MPI build is actually running on more than one node: * Early on, it will clear john_main_process for all but node 0. * When starting a new session, it will reject the --fork option. * But it will write a fake "-fork=x" entry in the rec file. * And when resuming, it will ignore any "-fork=x" entry in the rec file. Actually it will demand one but ignore it's original meaning - and it will verify that x == number of nodes and bail out otherwise. Simple is beatyful. I think the above will basically do the trick (though the devil may be in the details). BTW for combinations like this: ./john -fork=4 -node=5-8/12 ... in the contest branch, this could also be done with MPI as in: mpirun -np 4 ./john -node=5-8/12 ... The contest-branch code for this MPI-specific case is hard to follow. If my unification of MPI & fork goes well, this will now be supported basically just using present core code. Less differences, less maintenance, much more reliable! magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.