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

Greg Bronevetsky bronevetsky1 at llnl.gov
Fri Oct 24 16:39:26 CDT 2008

I think that this would be a useful thing to do in general but how do 
we put a specification like this into MPI 3.0? We've never had any 
MPI specifications that go below the application level. The MPI-FT 
group may be the right group to talk about this but I don't see how 
we can standardize the result in MPI.

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

At 02:24 PM 10/24/2008, Mike Heffner wrote:
>My original thoughts on this were to not put it at the 
>application-visible level of the MPI specification. There are going 
>to be several different approaches to checkpointing an MPI stack and 
>I don't think they can all be represented in a single flat API. 
>There will be solutions that sit at the application MPI level and do 
>message logging or provide the ability for application quiescence, 
>there will be solutions that can sit lower in the stack and not 
>worry about communicators, MPI msg types, etc. just the final 
>send/recvs (e.g., the MPID layer of mpich), and there will probably 
>be solutions that are provided as part of the interconnect 
>implementations themselves (e.g., as part of libverbs for IB).
>Therefore, it may be appropriate to discuss these solutions as 
>tiered approaches to C/R and not all as MPI-level API requirements. 
>I do think that this group should be influential in designing these 
>requirements though even if they don't exist at the application's MPI level.
>Narasimhan, Kannan wrote:
>>[Changing the title to track discussion]
>>Agreed -- specifiying an explicit list of platforms or OS or even
>>resource specifics is not the way to go in a standard.
>>My suggestion would be to explore if we can define abstract,
>>higher-level resources to define a "state", and specify high-level
>>actions. For instance, pinning/unpinning memory is very specific to
>>RDMA, but maybe a "disconnect virtual connection" operation may
>>abstract it. But this puts us into the realm of virtualizing MPI
>>internal components/concepts ..
>>Maybe there is a more elegant way ...
>>-----Original Message----- From: mpi3-ft-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org
>>[mailto:mpi3-ft-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Greg
>>Bronevetsky Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:46 PM To: MPI 3.0 Fault
>>Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group; MPI 3.0 Fault
>>Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group Subject: Re:
>>[Mpi3-ft] Summary of today's meeting
>>>When I look at the restore requirements on MPI as described below,
>>>they seem quit extensive. Including re-pining and opening any
>>>previous opened communication handles.
>>I agree. Furthermore, its not just the length of the list but also
>>the fact that it is very sensitive to platform-specific details. If
>>we have any hope of providing this API, we'll need a good survey of
>>what would be required on the full range of possible target
>>platforms, ranging from BGL CNK/Catamount, to Windows/Unix to
>>Symbian, even if there currently are no MPI implementations on a
>>given possible platform. With the regular MPI spec we don't need to
>>do anything so thorough because MPI is high-level enough that it is
>>reasonable to assume that an implementation of some sort can be
>>written for any platform. However, here we're talking about such
>>low-level details that getting them wrong in the spec would mean that
>>implementations on some platforms would actually be impossible. We
>>could put in an explicit list of OSs that the quiescence API applies
>>to but I don't think that'd fly with the forum.
>>Greg Bronevetsky Post-Doctoral Researcher 1028 Building 451 Lawrence
>>Livermore National Lab (925) 424-5756 bronevetsky1 at llnl.gov
>>_______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing 
>>list mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org http:// 
>>_______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing 
>>list mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org http:// 
>   Mike Heffner <mike.heffner at evergrid.com>
>   Librato, Inc.
>   Blacksburg, VA USA
>   Voice: (540) 443-3500 #603
>mpi3-ft mailing list
>mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
>http:// lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft

More information about the mpiwg-ft mailing list