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

[Martin Schulz]

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2010-11-mpi3-toolswg-status-sc.pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 88029 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-tools/attachments/20101029/4a119d3b/attachment-0001.pptx>
-------------- next part --------------

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