openmpi versus mpich2
jason.swails at gmail.com
Mon Aug 8 06:57:39 PDT 2011
Coming from the world of high performance computing, MPICH2 and related
variants (like mvapich2) tend to enjoy more support than OpenMPI due to
I personally use mpich2 myself, but tend to compile my own MPIs, as the
multiplicity can get you in trouble (if you link serial libraries to MPI
code, you can run into lots of problems if the compiler version used to
build the MPI libraries, and therefore the ones you're using to build the
MPI code if you use mpicc/mpif90, is not the same as the compiler version
you used to build the serial libraries).
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Eric A. Borisch <eborisch at macports.org>wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Rodolfo Aramayo <raramayo at gmail.com>
> > Basic question:
> > Can these two ports be installed side by side:
> > openmpi and mpich2
> > and
> > which one is better for what purposes or are they equivalent in
> > function and performance?
> > --Thanks
> > --R
> Provided mpich2 is not installed with +default (conflict is noted in
> variant description) the two should happily coexist. (I say *should*
> as I haven't tried it recently.)
> As to which is better... it depends. They both implement the MPI2
> standard, so they both solve the same problem, in many respects. IMHO,
> OpenMPI is designed to provide lots of run-time adjustments, while
> MPICH2 tends to be more set at (mpich2) compile time. I'm sure you can
> find plenty of opinions online with a Google search.
> I prefer mpich2 as I use mvapich2 on other (linux-based Infiniband
> cluster) systems, which is itself based on mpich2.
> Good luck,
> Eric A. Borisch (mpich2 port maintainer)
> macports-users mailing list
> macports-users at lists.macosforge.org
Jason M. Swails
Quantum Theory Project,
University of Florida
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the macports-users