February 2017 - codes-ross-users - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Simulation ends with events unprocessed
by Jian Peng 06 Mar '17

06 Mar '17

Hi, I'm running some experiments on Dragonfly with CODES 5.0.2. Sometimes they end up with unsent messages remaining in terminals and routers. I think the reason is the events that carry these messages are not handled. I looked through my debugging information and confirmed it. So, why does ROSS end when there are still events unprocessed? I'm running a sequential simulation. Thanks. [image: Inline image 1]

3 5

Questions about CODES
by Junji Kobayashi 28 Feb '17

28 Feb '17

Hi there, I want to simulate asynchronous RPC operation using CODES. (ex. LP x send a message to LP y and LP z using asynchronous RPC) Does CODES support asynchronous RPC? And how to simulate asynchronous RPC using CODES. Best Regards. Junji Kobayashi email:([email protected])

2 1

Fat-tree configuration support oversubscription >1?
by Peixin Qiao 01 Feb '17

01 Feb '17

Hi there, When I do research about fat-tree topology uisng CODES, the fat-tree.conf shows that the topology is with an oversubscription of 1:1, which indicates that all hosts may potentially communicate with arbitrary other hosts at the full bandwidth of their network interface. But the Stampede systems, which I simulated is with an oversubscription of 1.25:1, which means that each leaf switch with 36 ports is directly connected to 20 hosts and 16 ports in the core switch. So, does CODES support this configuration? And how should I modify the configuration file? Best Regards, Peixin Qiao

2 1

Re: [codes-ross-users] Fat-tree configuration support oversubscription >1?
by noah wolfe 01 Feb '17

01 Feb '17

Hi Peixin, The current implementation of the CODES fat-tree model only supports 1:1 port mapping for leaf level switches to maintain the standard full bisection fat-tree layout (i.e. half the ports go down to hosts and the other half go up to the next level switches). However, the mapping of ports can be adjusted for leaf level switches (and all levels of switches) in the switch_init() function. Perhaps adding another ft_type for oversubscription of leaf switches would be the best approach. The mapping of hosts to switches which is done in the ft_terminal_init() would also need to be adjusted for the increased number of host connections to leaf switches. Both functions are found in src/networks/model-net/fattree.c. By the way, recently updated documentation for the CODES fat-tree model can be found on the wiki: https://xgitlab.cels.anl.gov/codes/codes/wikis/codes-fattree Thanks, Noah From: <codes-ross-users-bounces(a)lists.mcs.anl.gov <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Peixin Qiao <pqiao(a)hawk.iit.edu <mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 12:02 PM To: "codes-ross-users(a)lists.mcs.anl.gov <mailto:[email protected]>" <codes-ross-users(a)lists.mcs.anl.gov <mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [codes-ross-users] Fat-tree configuration support oversubscription >1? Hi there, When I do research about fat-tree topology uisng CODES, the fat-tree.conf shows that the topology is with an oversubscription of 1:1, which indicates that all hosts may potentially communicate with arbitrary other hosts at the full bandwidth of their network interface. But the Stampede systems, which I simulated is with an oversubscription of 1.25:1, which means that each leaf switch with 36 ports is directly connected to 20 hosts and 16 ports in the core switch. So, does CODES support this configuration? And how should I modify the configuration file? Best Regards, Peixin Qiao

1 0