[Mpi-forum] Deadline for next year's release
m.a.hermanns at fz-juelich.de
Wed Sep 2 14:53:24 CDT 2009
maybe just to add to Torsten, who wrapped up the discussion quite well.
- we (here in Helsinki) agreed that it is vital to get some things out
to the user soon (like the NBCs) and not have them wait all the way,
till MPI 3.0 is settled
- we did not agree, yet, what name such a release would have:
2.3, 2.9, 3.0, ... (that is to be discussed)
I think the main message of Jeff's earlier mail was: If you want to get
your stuff out soon, you will have to get it to the first reading by
march, or you will have to wait till the "big package" is passed in 3
years, as I took it from the discussions that everybody present was
reluctant to have another intermediate release.
Torsten Hoefler wrote:
> Bronis, all,
>>> Note to everyone who is not in the Helsinki meeting: there was
>>> consensus that we want some kind of release in November 2010. The
>>> exact name of that release is still TBD (likely "3.0", but there's
>>> still some discussion about this), but the point is that WG's need to
>>> have text ready for 1st readings by the ***MARCH 2010*** Forum meeting
>>> in order to be included in the Nov 2010 release.
>>> This is not too far away.
>> No, it is not. It does not seem realistic to me. We
>> would clearly have the nonblocking collectives ready
>> but I don't think much else would be. I think we could
>> have a LITTLE of the tools stuff ready. From what I
>> have seen, I doubt other WGs will get beyond that...
> we talked about a staged release, possibly also MPI 2.3. I don't think
> that we rush anything. I'm positive that the FT group could have a
> proposal for consistent error codes and smaller things that are very
> important for FT by this time. Other groups like the Hybrid WG could
> also have something.
> And even if we don't have anything, what can you say against releasing a
> smaller incremental version with just NBCs and minor things.
> There was an objection that doing another MPI 2.2-like effort would cost
> a lot of the MPI 3 energy. While I fully agree to this, I'd say that
> this seems to be a question of policy. We decide what we discuss (and we
> should have a good clean base now).
> I would also like to have NBCs in an MPI release that does *not* break
> API compatibility. The burden on the user who wants to use NBC would be
> too big (imagine that you had to rewrite your 10^6 SLOC MPI program to
> run with MPI 3.0 just because you want to use NBCs). A good example for
> such an API breaker is the necessary MPI_Count discussion.
> A staged release would also ensure easy implementation and the timely
> availability of the compliant MPI implementations (I suspect that we
> will see MPI 2.2 adoption rather soon).
> I am really against rush here, we have to evaluate every new proposal as
> rigorously as we evaluated NBCs. If a proposal fails the March
> "deadline", then it will simply float into the next release.
> All the Best,
Juelich Supercomputing Centre
Institute for Advanced Simulation
Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
Phone : +49-2461-61-2054
Fax : +49-2461-61-6656
eMail : m.a.hermanns at fz-juelich.de
WWW : http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/
JSC is the coordinator of the
John von Neumann Institute for Computing
and member of the
Gauss Centre for Supercomputing
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir'in Baerbel Brumme-Bothe
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender),
Prof. Dr. Harald Bolt,
Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6042 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the mpi-forum