[Mpi-forum] MPI user survey

[Supalov, Alexander]

Dear Jeff,

Please add, irrespective of the RMA aspect, the following question:

"Do you want to achieve higher performance by disabling certain MPI-3 features in your program (thru subsetting, assertions, etc.)?"

Best regards.

Alexander

-----Original Message-----
From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:36 PM
To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey

Folks --

Tel me exactly what to put on the survey.  :-)


On Nov 16, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Christian Bell wrote:

>
> On Nov 16, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
>
> > Can we completely ignore the performance-richness dichotomy and ask
> > the following?
> >
> > "Would you benefit if the MPI Forum enhances and extends the  
> existing
> > one-sided operations?  That is, would you like to replace MPI
> > two-sided calls in your code with one-sided ones and/or use MPI
> > instead of another one-sided API (e.g. ARMCI)?"
>
> Why not be frank and to the point:
>
> The MPI Forum is currently investigating whether it is worthwhile
> supporting two RMA interfaces -- a feature-rich RMA interface and/or a
> performance-oriented interface with potentially more constraints.
>
> a) I only care about performance-oriented RMA
> b) I want RMA to implement a rich set of features at the cost of some
> performance/portability
> c) I think supporting 2 interfaces is a must because...
> [...]
>
> I won't elaborate more here because my slant against a feature-rich
> RMA will start showing (if it hasn't already).
>
>
> For the RMA folks:
>
> FWIW, I think a new feature-rich RMA just gives users more ways to
> write bad programs and hints at a performance benefit that
> implementations may never actually deliver.  An all-encompassing RMA
> interface is a noble goal but it doesn't seem compatible with all the
> specialization that needs to happen to exploit newer architectures.
> RMA will always be a form of specialization so it better come with a
> large carrot for users to consider it.  I'd rather have a skinny and
> constrained RMA interface that has a fighting chance to deliver what
> it aims to provide.  What's wrong with labeling a performance-oriented
> interface with "DEPRECATED: BAD IDEA" in 5 years if it will have
> failed?  IMHO, it's no worse than banking on a feature-rich RMA
> interface that may (yet again) drown in apathy.
>
> No disrespect is intended to those already working hard to come up
> with a complete feature-rich and performance-portable RMA, but I see
> too much pain for very little gain.
>
>         . . christian
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>


-- 
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel GmbH
Dornacher Strasse 1
85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer
Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr.
VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.