[mpiwg-ft] Madrid Report

[Jim Dinan]

Hi Martin,

The slides that were presented in Madrid were actually a new deck.  We had
tried to address feedback that there is a need to do a better job of
covering the core issues, potential approaches, and justifications for
design decisions, beyond just presenting the proposal.  It sounds like more
discussion around these topics is needed, and we can work with that for the
Chicago meeting.

It sounds like we're being asked to break the proposal up into two sets of
changes -- one that defines failures in MPI and MPI's state after a
failure; and second that adds a recovery API.  Is that right?  I'm not sure
if it's possible to tease these things apart, but we can look into it.

Cheers,
 ~Jim.


On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Martin Schulz <schulzm at llnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is more from the viewpoint of an external observer, since I haven't
had the time to really participate lately.
>
> Rich gave a presentation covering the current proposal, but he also said
that this was basically the old slide deck that had been shown before and
didn't contain any of the new work that the FT group has been doing in
coordinating with the other WGs. There were also several questions that
people asked and that we couldn't answer since Rich was the only FT group
member at the meeting.
>
> Based on this I got the feeling that many in the forum were still
concerned about this overarching proposal and would like to hear more. In
particular, a few meetings back after the MPI 3.0 vote we had a discussion
about what was missing to make such concerns go away and one thing that we
agreed on was to first go through the standard and clean things up to make
it compatible with an FT proposal. From what I can tell, a lot of this has
happened and it may help to explicitly present that before even going into
the API approach. This (plus an updated talk with a broader discussion with
more FT group members being present) may be better for the Chicago meeting
than doing an actual formal reading (which may be too early since there
doesn't seem to be consensus about the approach, yet).
>
> From the application side, I have seen a few people starting to use it.
One of our PDs is using it for a large MD application and there is also the
following work I saw at a recent conference:
>
> ftp://ftp.inf.ethz.ch/pub/publications/tech-reports/7xx/793.pdf
>
> Both said that the interface is overly complex and has a very (too?) high
of an impact on applications, which makes me worried. Not sure how we can
address this, though.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller <bouteill at icl.utk.edu>
wrote:
>
> I am currently in Europe and busy. My schedule will get back to normal in
october.
>
> I'm also interested in a summary of events though.
>
> Aurelien
>
>
> Le 20 sept. 2013 à 00:42, Wesley Bland <wbland at mcs.anl.gov> a écrit :
>
> Hi WG,
>
> I've been out if the loop for a bit since my wife had our first baby last
week (everyone is doing great). I was wondering how things went at the
forum meeting last week. Was there any feedback from those in attendance?
>
> Also, I didn't see an email about this week's con call. I assume that it
didn't happen, but if it did can anyone mention what was discussed?
>
> Thanks,
> Wesley
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-ft mailing list
> mpiwg-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft
>
>
> --
> * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller
> * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory
> * University of Tennessee
> * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b
> * Knoxville, TN 37996
> * 865 974 9375
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-ft mailing list
> mpiwg-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm
> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-ft mailing list
> mpiwg-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-ft/attachments/20130925/2fdc46d7/attachment-0001.html>