[Mpi-forum] MPI-3 One-Sided Communications

Anthony Skjellum tony at cis.uab.edu
Thu Apr 23 19:32:54 CDT 2009

Hi, I was giving my opinion...

The main requirements for one sided was achieve lower latency than two sided (as well as one sidedness), and allow for potentially lower bandwidth on long transfers as a side effect... What one sided achieved is higher latency and higher bandwidth in typical (quality) implementations.  The api is consequently a mismatch to its original purpose... It diverged from its design center.. Missed the mark... Way too complex compared to simple put and get.

Starting again from first principles with the goal of very low latency remote put and get without the legacy of existing one sided is my suggestion.

In other words : Start over.

Perhaps that is why now we have an active messages group?
Not sure.

Anthony Skjellum, PhD
Professor and Chair
Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences
University of Alabama at Birmingham

-----Original Message-----
From: Vinod tipparaju <tipparajuv at hotmail.com>

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:09:38 
To: <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3 One-Sided Communications

mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org

More information about the mpi-forum mailing list