Newsgroups: comp.parallel.pvm
From: edwardm@cs.kun.nl (Edward Mahieu)
Subject: Re: LAM PVM lib vs PVM lib
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: 4 Jul 1995 11:04:14 GMT
Message-ID: <3tb77e$9j1@wn1.sci.kun.nl>

In <3tb1ce$e5d@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rdaoud@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Raja B Daoud) writes:

>Edward Mahieu <edwardm@cs.kun.nl> wrote:
>> Now i want to link the pvm library of lam instead. During execution it
>> seems that buffers get overloaded, using pvm_pkbyte.

>>Prov: info = -10.

>You're right, it is running out of memory and a malloc() is failing.
>When pack routines are called, the library allocates more buffer space
>than the strict minimum needed to pack the user's message in the hope
>that the next few packs would bypass calling malloc().  This amount of
>extra space is different in the two systems.  You may be getting close
>enough to the limit of memory such that the extra amount in LAM is
>causing malloc() to fail.

>> - What is the  solution for this error.

>Using less memory? :-)   I'll issue a patch to LAM's PVM library to
>make it use less extra space when malloc() fails.  This way it would
>reach the memory limit at a more conservative pace, delaying a malloc()
>failure as long as possible.

When will this patch be available?
Is it possible that a well working pvm program with pvm lib causes the described 
problems in LAM in another way i.e. should the buffer adresses be chanched.

>--Raja

>-=-
>Raja Daoud				raja@tbag.osc.edu
>Ohio Supercomputer Center		http://www.osc.edu/lam.html


Edward
--
+------------------------------------+
      E.M.P.A. Mahieu
      email: edwardm@cs.kun.nl
+------------------------------------+

