[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1b6eb41e02d755f2426b80a6baed7d91@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 14:37:12 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: MPI vs. --fork
On 3 May, 2013, at 14:33 , Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 02:14:43PM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> I tried this but I can't just use the original rec_restore_args(1) because it tries to give each MPI process an exclusive lock, which fails.
>
> Why does it fail? Doesn't each MPI process use its own .rec file? If
> not, then how are they supposed to work (and allow for --restore)?
Sure they have, but they fail when all of them is trying to read the main, unnumbered, session file when restoring. This is no problem for -fork because it hasn't forked yet. MPI has all "children" already running!
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.
