[Mpi3-tools] Tools WG status report for SC 2010

Jeff Squyres jsquyres at cisco.com
Mon Nov 1 07:12:59 CDT 2010

Here's a few suggestions along the lines of what Bronis suggested (view in the slideshow mode to see them).  I only had time to do the first slide.

On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:12 PM, Martin Schulz wrote:

> Hi Bronis, all,
> Thanks for the feedback - I have to admit, though, I have
> no idea how to represent this graphically in a useful way.
> If anyone has suggestions, please feel free to draft
> something. Also, Rich limited each WG to 2-3 slides, so
> adding two more full slides wouldn't work. It would have
> to be sketches on the current slides.
> The other points, that this presentation needs to be more
> targeted towards the SC audience and be more technical
> is certainly right. I have attached a modified version - I will
> ask Rich for a few more days, so that we can discuss this
> a bit more (incl. on Monday's TelCon).
> Thanks,
> Martin
> <2010-11-mpi3-toolswg-status-sc.pptx>
> On Oct 27, 2010, at 4:45 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:
>> Martin:
>> Re:
>>> As some/most of you have probably seen, Rich asked for 2-3
>>> slide overview/status update from each WG for his presentation
>>> on the MPI-3 efforts during the SC MPI BoF. Attached is a first
>>> draft for our activities in the tools WG. Please let me know if
>>> have any comments or suggestions. Rich needs this by Friday,
>>> so please answer as soon as possible.
>> At a high level, these slides are rather dry. I have
>> found the BoF presentations to be somewhat boring in
>> the past and these slides won't change that. I think
>> it would be good to have two more slides that graphically
>> illustrate the main thrusts. The first could show how
>> MPIT will work (and, at least to some extent, what it
>> is good for). The second could illustrate the MPIR
>> acquisition interface and why we need to extend it
>> before we incorporate it into the standard.
>> At a slightly lower level, what these slides are missing
>> is related to what you need to show graphically. You
>> say MPIR is not ideal but you provide nothing that
>> backs up that statement other than "has scalability
>> problems". I think you need to show it has those problems
>> and you need to state that it cannot support dynamic
>> processes (and that one can expect dynamic processes
>> will become important to fault tolerance so they are
>> likely to be used in the future even if they are not
>> today). Similarly, you don't give any real feel for
>> what MPIT is or how one would use it and why. Covering
>> those issues are of much more interest to a general
>> audience than a status report on something they
>> do not know enough about to evaluate.
>> Bronis
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mpi3-tools mailing list
>> Mpi3-tools at lists.mpi-forum.org
>> http://BLOCKEDlists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm
> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
> _______________________________________________
> Mpi3-tools mailing list
> Mpi3-tools at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools

Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jsquyres-revisions-2010-11-mpi3-toolswg-status-sc.pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 703546 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-tools/attachments/20101101/b32f7698/attachment.pptx>

More information about the mpiwg-tools mailing list