[Mpi-forum] MPI user survey

[Vinod tipparaju]

I am concerned with the way this question is worded. 
I am only concerned for a general user that is doing this survey. I think this question seems to suggest that MPI-3 RMA will finally be defined in such a way that either a) rich RMA feature set, or  b) good message rate, is utimately possible. I disagree with this completely. RMA for MPI-3 must target and deliver both, even if we have to have two interfaces for RMA (after Keith and Brian do their investigation and conclude that having a second interface is a must). I think we cannot get away with an interface with rich feature set that prevents high-message rate or low latency just because 95% of users who take the survey say they only care about rich feature set. Alternatively, if we don't care what users say and still are going to deliver an RMA specification that gives both, why are we asking this question?
Note that I (as a participant in RMA standardization meetings) understand that the intention of this question may be to see what people care more about --latency/message-rate or rich feature set. 
I cannot see how this can be worded to address all the concerns with out including 1/2 a page of explanation. So I think we should hold-off on including this question in the survey for now.
Thanks,Vinod.
--
Vinod Tipparaju ^ http://ft.ornl.gov/~vinod ^ 1-865-241-1802



> From: jsquyres at cisco.com
> To: mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:39:09 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey
> 
> On Nov 16, 2009, at 7:28 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote:
> 
> > Why don't we ask directly: do you want to have subsets in MPI-3 to  
> > trade feature richness for performance if you care?
> >
> 
> We didn't ask about subsets at all because the WG is "on hold".  Do  
> you want to introduce a new question?  If so, can you suggest the  
> specific wording?
> 
> Note that Keith suggested an improved wording for the RMA question  
> (this was buried in my reply to Dick):
> 
> "MPI one-sided communication performance (e.g., message rate and  
> latency) is more important to me than supporting a rich remote memory  
> access (RMA) feature set (e.g., communicators, datatypes)."
> 
> Jeff H. replied to me off-list that he liked this better than his  
> suggestion.  Does anyone else have any suggestions / comments on this  
> one?
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres at cisco.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20091116/1b73c536/attachment-0001.html>