[mpiwg-ft] Madrid Report
bouteill at icl.utk.edu
Thu Sep 26 10:51:05 CDT 2013
Le 24 sept. 2013 à 20:48, Martin Schulz <schulzm at llnl.gov> a écrit :
> 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:
> 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.
thanks for the good feedback. I read the linked report and found no such reference to difficulties in using ULFM interface (on the contrary they state that "In the presence of failure some overhead is unavoidable because communicators
have to be revoked and shrinked. Our results indicate that these effects are negligible.", which is extremely positive!). However they state difficulties with a bug in the implementation that we have recently fixed (errors in agreement).
I would be very eager to hear the details of what was found difficult to use with the spec itself (not implementation bugs, which are obviously annoying). We still have time to account for good user feedback!
> 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.
>> 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?
>>> mpiwg-ft mailing list
>>> mpiwg-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
>> * 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
> 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
* Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller
* Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory
* University of Tennessee
* 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b
* Knoxville, TN 37996
* 865 974 9375
More information about the mpiwg-ft