[Mpi3-ft] system-level C/R requirements

Greg Bronevetsky bronevetsky1 at llnl.gov
Fri Oct 24 15:50:47 CDT 2008

>Probably we should not try to define this, and encourage
>checkpoint/restart people work with particular MPI implementations to
>make sure things work? After all, it's not about an abstract MPI and
>abstract CR system - there will probably always be actual pairs (or
>other relationships) of them that can work together.
>Compare this to the situation with threads. MPI acknowledges their
>existence and provide a couple of calls to request a particular level of
>support, that's all. This was good enough for starters, and may change
>in the future. The relation between MPI and CR may go this way, too:
>acknowledging first, integrating next.

If all that you want to add to the spec is a couple of calls to say 
that MPI state should be frozen in some sense, that's fine with me 
since we're defining what these calls do. However, I'm not sure that 
the wider forum will accept them because there is a general dislike 
for adding more calls and the primary value of these calls is to 
motivate people to provide implementation-specific definitions for 
them, which I'm guessing is lower than the standard bar for acceptance.

Greg Bronevetsky
Post-Doctoral Researcher
1028 Building 451
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
(925) 424-5756
bronevetsky1 at llnl.gov 

More information about the mpiwg-ft mailing list