[Mpi3-ft] Topics for next telecon

[Greg Bronevetsky]

We're planning on one.

Greg Bronevetsky
Post-Doctoral Researcher
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
(925) 424-5756
bronevetsky at llnl.gov
http://greg.bronevetsky.com

At 06:30 AM 6/17/2009, Josh Hursey wrote:
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpi3-ft mailing list
>mpi3-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
>http:// lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft