A profiling of both of your codes would help to understand where the time is spent and the difference between them in terms of performance. Antonio On 01/16/2014 12:47 PM, Luiz Carlos da Costa Junior wrote:

Yes, I am comparing original x new implementation.

The original implementation is as follows.

c----------------------------------------------------------------------- subroutine my_receiver_original c ------------------------------------------------------------------ (...)

c Local c ----- integer*4 m_stat(MPI_STATUS_SIZE) character card*(zbuf) ! buffer for messages received

do while( keep_receiving ) call MPI_RECV(card, zbuf, MPI_CHARACTER, . MPI_ANY_SOURCE, M_RECCSV, MY_COMM, . m_stat, m_ierr )

c Process message: disk IO c --------------- <DO SOMETHING> if( SOMETHING_ELSE ) then keep_receiving = .false. end if end do

(...)

return end

Regards, Luiz

On 16 January 2014 16:19, Balaji, Pavan <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

On Jan 16, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Luiz Carlos da Costa Junior <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > No, these failures don't occur all the time. I have a successful run (with my original implementation) which I am using as the base case for comparison.

What are the two cases you are comparing? Original implementation vs. new implementation? What's the original implementation?

--- Pavan

_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- Antonio J. Pe�a Postdoctoral Appointee Mathematics and Computer Science Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue, Bldg. 240, Of. 3148 Argonne, IL 60439-4847 [email protected] www.mcs.anl.gov/~apenya