[Mpi3-ft] Topics for next telecon

[Josh Hursey]

Is there a teleconf today or did you all decide to push until next  
week due to the Forum meeting last week?

-- Josh

On Jun 14, 2009, at 8:19 PM, Graham, Richard L. wrote:

> All the information is on the web, under the mpi-3 ft working group.  
> If you need a URL, I can send it to you later - don't have access now.
>
> Rich
>
>
> From: mpi3-ft-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org
> To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group
> Sent: Sun Jun 14 20:11:04 2009
> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] Topics for next telecon
>
> Hi, What is the telecon schedule and how does one get invited?
> Thanks,
> Tony
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Martin Schulz <schulzm at llnl.gov>  
> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> At 06:00 PM 6/10/2009, Greg Bronevetsky wrote:
> For the next telecon I propose that we address the following topics.
> - The piggybacking proposal was considered by the FT group several  
> months ago but then got lost in a limbo between the FT group and the  
> tools group. We need to discuss this proposal and the issues behind  
> it so that we can figure out how to make progress on it.
>
> I agree with Greg - it would be great if we could pick this up
> again and try to come up with a single, common proposal. There is
> interest in this from multiple WGs (which is probably part of
> the problem of why nobody has pushed this forward) and if the FT
> group could continue to "host" this, that would be great. It
> would also be good to cross-post the TelCon announcement to the
> tools and AM WGs (for the latter, Torsten has voiced interest).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> - During the face-to-face discussion we began talking about the  
> desired error notification semantics for collectives. The question  
> is: are MPI implementations allowed to provide no error notification  
> as part of their collectives, relying on calls to MPI_Validate for  
> this functionality or do we expect them to report all relevant  
> errors. In particular, is MPI_Barrier responsible for reporting  
> failures of any members of the communicator or is it allowed to mis- 
> behave in the event of failures and for example, return successfully  
> even if one process failed before calling MPI_Barrier? If so, how do  
> we bound the limit of such mis-behaviors?
>
> Greg Bronevetsky
> Post-Doctoral Researcher
> Lawrence Livermore National Lab
> (925) 424-5756
> bronevetsky at llnl.gov
> http:// greg.bronevetsky.com
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-ft mailing list
> mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http:// lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulz6
> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-ft mailing list
> mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft
>
>
>
> -- 
> Tony Skjellum, PhD
> RunTime Computing Solutions, LLC
> tony at runtimecomputing.com
> direct: +1-205-314-3595
> cell: +1-205-807-4968
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-ft mailing list
> mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft