November 2009 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi-forum] Final call: user survey
by George Bosilca 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

Some feedback: - there is a typo on the 3th question: educatoror ... seems like toreador - we use implementer/researcher and then at the end "project/program management". I would put manager instead of management. - "expert on the entire MPI standard" who can _really_ claims that? george. On Nov 18, 2009, at 09:11 , Jeff Squyres wrote: > I tried to take into account all the feedback. I generally did the > following: > > - reordered to put "user" oriented questions first, "developer" > oriented questions last > - I found I could add a block of "instructions" before questions -- > I added some clarification text to some of the more complex questions > - tweaked a little wording here and there > - added Dick's subsetting question (re-oriented it to be like the > others) > > Please let me know what you think by noonish (Pacific) today. I > don't think I'll be doing any major changes after this; please make > small suggestions (typo fixes, wording changes, etc.). I'll also > wipe all data that has been submitted by noonish (Pacific), too, so > feel free to play with the survey until then. > > http://mpi-forum.questionpro.com > Password: mpi3 > > Thanks for everyone's time on this survey! > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Final call: user survey
by Jeff Squyres 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

I tried to take into account all the feedback. I generally did the following: - reordered to put "user" oriented questions first, "developer" oriented questions last - I found I could add a block of "instructions" before questions -- I added some clarification text to some of the more complex questions - tweaked a little wording here and there - added Dick's subsetting question (re-oriented it to be like the others) Please let me know what you think by noonish (Pacific) today. I don't think I'll be doing any major changes after this; please make small suggestions (typo fixes, wording changes, etc.). I'll also wipe all data that has been submitted by noonish (Pacific), too, so feel free to play with the survey until then. http://mpi-forum.questionpro.com Password: mpi3 Thanks for everyone's time on this survey! -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey
by Jeff Squyres 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

This question is not well differentiated from Dick's question, IMHO -- I don't think a user will be able to tell the difference. Unless it can be clearly distinguished from Dick's question, I think we should only include one of them. On Nov 17, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > Thanks. Good idea. A first take on the subsetting follows: > > The MPI-3 standard is going to provide several substantial > extensions to the existing MPI standard. Some of them may or may not > be needed for all MPI-3 applications. At the same time, runtime > support for the complete set of the MPI-3 features may incur > additional implementation complexity and hence probably performance > and/or memory space penalty on the rest of the MPI implementation > (think dynamic processes in the case of MPI-2, for one). Subsetting, > i.e., a facility intended to determine a working subset of the MPI > features needed for a particular application, was proposed as one > way of managing the increasing complexity of the MPI standard on a > per application basis. If such a facility were included into the > MPI-3 standard, how useful might that be to you? > > Very valuable > Probably valuable > Probably useless > Useless > Harmful > > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected] > ] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:48 PM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey > > I will leave it to Alexander to for a question about subsetting if > he wishes to. Here is one about assertions. > > The MPI standard provides certain semantic guarantees that may not > be required by a > particular application. It also provides functions that many > applications never use. If MPI-3 > provided an "assertions" interface that would let an application > identify specific > functionality it does not depend on and an MPI library could improve > performance or reduce > memory usage by disabling that specific functionality, how valuable > might that interface be? > > Very valuable > Probably valuable > Probably useless > useless > harmful > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > IBM Systems & Technology Group > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org wrote on 11/17/2009 11:40:03 AM: > > > [image removed] > > > > Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey > > > > Jeff Squyres > > > > to: > > > > Main MPI Forum mailing list > > > > 11/17/2009 11:41 AM > > > > Sent by: > > > > mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > > > Please respond to Main MPI Forum mailing list > > > > On Nov 17, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > > > > > No objections - let's go for 2 separate questions, e.g.: > > > > > > "Do you want to achieve higher performance by disabling certain > > > MPI-3 features in your program? > > > > I do not think that this is a well-formed question. > > > > It directly states something that has not been well defined (or even > > accepted) by the Forum. Specifically: it is *by no means > guaranteed* > > that you will get higher performance by disabling certain MPI-3 > > features. Heck, we don't even know precisely what MPI-3 features > will > > exist! > > > > > "If so, do you prefer subsetting or assertions?" > > > > The others questions contain at least a hint of context so that > > respondents have a clue as to how to answer. This one explains > > neither "subsetting" nor "assertions". I suspect that 95% of > > respondents will not know how to answer. > > > > -- > > Jeff Squyres > > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi-forum mailing list > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel GmbH > Dornacher Strasse 1 > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey - what purpose?
by Underwood, Keith D 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

We do need to remember what our options are here... We can do a survey that is possibly biased by "the answers we want", or we can get our feedback from the people coming to the forum who will each personally bias the user feedback based on the answer they want, or we can do this in the absence of feedback... Does somebody see a 4th option that is actually good? Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Bronis R. de Supinski > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 7:37 AM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey - what purpose? > > > I agree 100% with Dick's statement that survey support > will not be a convincing arguement to move forward with > large (or, IMO, small) issues. At most, we might get a > few "Hey, we didn't think of that" ideas or issues out > of this survey. Anything further would be a mistake. > > Feedback is useful but it must be filtered. > > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Jeff Squyres wrote: > > > Thanks all for the comments about the survey. Apologies that I have > > not replied earlier; I have read all of the feedback and am making a > > final whack at the on-line survey right now. I'm at SC09 this week > > and my email access is limited to extremely late in the evening and > > extremely early in the morning. > > > > It's hard to disagree with what has been said; I'm in complete > > agreement that surveys are very, very hard to do properly. At the > > same time, perhaps it's just the optimist in me that feels like we > > need to try to get some feedback on the "big" issues. We're making > > MPI-3 for what people want to do, right? > > > > I do tend to agree with Dick that some of the Big Complex Issue > > questions may be of limited value far all the reasons previously > > discussed. Perhaps they should turn into general text box answers > > rather than a simple number evaluation -- that might give [slightly] > > more useful results by forcing the user to *say* something > descriptive. > > > > > > > > On Nov 18, 2009, at 6:16 AM, Richard Treumann wrote: > > > > > I would like to hear exactly what the advocates of doing a survey > > > hope to gain from it. > > > > > > A survey about what people use MPI for today might give useful > > > information if the survey is well constructed. One that asks > > > questions about what they expect to want to do over the next decade > > > could conceivably give useful information though I think it would > be > > > hard to construct well and hard to interpret. > > > > > > Asking questions about complex technical options by giving very > > > brief overviews, each crafted by a person who knows what answer > they > > > want seems to have almost zero chance of giving useful feedback. At > > > most it gives the person with a particular agenda a way to argue > > > that his agenda has strong support. Of course, in most (or all) > > > cases, if the survey question had been crafted by a skeptic of that > > > agenda, the support would not be seen and the argument would be > that > > > the public is clearly not on board. > > > > > > In reality neither question tells us how the community will respond > > > to the ultimate content of the MPI 3 standard. Responsible, > > > professional polling organization have highly trained specialists > > > crafting supposedly balanced questions and still freely confess > that > > > a favorable response to question is not the same as genuine support > > > for the underlying issue. > > > > > > I, for one, will not give it much credence when somebody brings > > > forward a 20 page extension to the standard and says: "We must vote > > > this in because my 20 word question about it got 85% favorable." > > > > > > Dick > > > > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > > > IBM Systems & Technology Group > > > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > > > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > mpi-forum mailing list > > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > > http://*lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > > > > -- > > Jeff Squyres > > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi-forum mailing list > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://*lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey - what purpose?
by Bronis R. de Supinski 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

I agree 100% with Dick's statement that survey support will not be a convincing arguement to move forward with large (or, IMO, small) issues. At most, we might get a few "Hey, we didn't think of that" ideas or issues out of this survey. Anything further would be a mistake. Feedback is useful but it must be filtered. On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Jeff Squyres wrote: > Thanks all for the comments about the survey. Apologies that I have > not replied earlier; I have read all of the feedback and am making a > final whack at the on-line survey right now. I'm at SC09 this week > and my email access is limited to extremely late in the evening and > extremely early in the morning. > > It's hard to disagree with what has been said; I'm in complete > agreement that surveys are very, very hard to do properly. At the > same time, perhaps it's just the optimist in me that feels like we > need to try to get some feedback on the "big" issues. We're making > MPI-3 for what people want to do, right? > > I do tend to agree with Dick that some of the Big Complex Issue > questions may be of limited value far all the reasons previously > discussed. Perhaps they should turn into general text box answers > rather than a simple number evaluation -- that might give [slightly] > more useful results by forcing the user to *say* something descriptive. > > > > On Nov 18, 2009, at 6:16 AM, Richard Treumann wrote: > > > I would like to hear exactly what the advocates of doing a survey > > hope to gain from it. > > > > A survey about what people use MPI for today might give useful > > information if the survey is well constructed. One that asks > > questions about what they expect to want to do over the next decade > > could conceivably give useful information though I think it would be > > hard to construct well and hard to interpret. > > > > Asking questions about complex technical options by giving very > > brief overviews, each crafted by a person who knows what answer they > > want seems to have almost zero chance of giving useful feedback. At > > most it gives the person with a particular agenda a way to argue > > that his agenda has strong support. Of course, in most (or all) > > cases, if the survey question had been crafted by a skeptic of that > > agenda, the support would not be seen and the argument would be that > > the public is clearly not on board. > > > > In reality neither question tells us how the community will respond > > to the ultimate content of the MPI 3 standard. Responsible, > > professional polling organization have highly trained specialists > > crafting supposedly balanced questions and still freely confess that > > a favorable response to question is not the same as genuine support > > for the underlying issue. > > > > I, for one, will not give it much credence when somebody brings > > forward a 20 page extension to the standard and says: "We must vote > > this in because my 20 word question about it got 85% favorable." > > > > Dick > > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > > IBM Systems & Technology Group > > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi-forum mailing list > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://*lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://*lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey - what purpose?
by Jeff Squyres 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

Thanks all for the comments about the survey. Apologies that I have not replied earlier; I have read all of the feedback and am making a final whack at the on-line survey right now. I'm at SC09 this week and my email access is limited to extremely late in the evening and extremely early in the morning. It's hard to disagree with what has been said; I'm in complete agreement that surveys are very, very hard to do properly. At the same time, perhaps it's just the optimist in me that feels like we need to try to get some feedback on the "big" issues. We're making MPI-3 for what people want to do, right? I do tend to agree with Dick that some of the Big Complex Issue questions may be of limited value far all the reasons previously discussed. Perhaps they should turn into general text box answers rather than a simple number evaluation -- that might give [slightly] more useful results by forcing the user to *say* something descriptive. On Nov 18, 2009, at 6:16 AM, Richard Treumann wrote: > I would like to hear exactly what the advocates of doing a survey > hope to gain from it. > > A survey about what people use MPI for today might give useful > information if the survey is well constructed. One that asks > questions about what they expect to want to do over the next decade > could conceivably give useful information though I think it would be > hard to construct well and hard to interpret. > > Asking questions about complex technical options by giving very > brief overviews, each crafted by a person who knows what answer they > want seems to have almost zero chance of giving useful feedback. At > most it gives the person with a particular agenda a way to argue > that his agenda has strong support. Of course, in most (or all) > cases, if the survey question had been crafted by a skeptic of that > agenda, the support would not be seen and the argument would be that > the public is clearly not on board. > > In reality neither question tells us how the community will respond > to the ultimate content of the MPI 3 standard. Responsible, > professional polling organization have highly trained specialists > crafting supposedly balanced questions and still freely confess that > a favorable response to question is not the same as genuine support > for the underlying issue. > > I, for one, will not give it much credence when somebody brings > forward a 20 page extension to the standard and says: "We must vote > this in because my 20 word question about it got 85% favorable." > > Dick > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > IBM Systems & Technology Group > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

MPI user survey - what purpose?
by Richard Treumann 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

I would like to hear exactly what the advocates of doing a survey hope to gain from it. A survey about what people use MPI for today might give useful information if the survey is well constructed. One that asks questions about what they expect to want to do over the next decade could conceivably give useful information though I think it would be hard to construct well and hard to interpret. Asking questions about complex technical options by giving very brief overviews, each crafted by a person who knows what answer they want seems to have almost zero chance of giving useful feedback. At most it gives the person with a particular agenda a way to argue that his agenda has strong support. Of course, in most (or all) cases, if the survey question had been crafted by a skeptic of that agenda, the support would not be seen and the argument would be that the public is clearly not on board. In reality neither question tells us how the community will respond to the ultimate content of the MPI 3 standard. Responsible, professional polling organization have highly trained specialists crafting supposedly balanced questions and still freely confess that a favorable response to question is not the same as genuine support for the underlying issue. I, for one, will not give it much credence when somebody brings forward a 20 page extension to the standard and says: "We must vote this in because my 20 word question about it got 85% favorable." Dick Dick Treumann - MPI Team IBM Systems & Technology Group Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey
by Jesper Larsson Traff 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

I agree with Dick's inital skepticism about the usefulness in general of such user survey's (that always more or less generate the feedback the authors want in the first palce...), and the below is in my opinion definitely not going to generate any useful input (it's too vague, and even more dangerously, speaking about things where the ramifications and pro's and cons are not even clear to the "experts" - what guidance do the Forum possibly expect from the causual filler-outer here???) I think the initial, more modest try by Jeff could, perhaps, (with emphasis on "could" and "perhaps") generate a useful feedback. Technical discussions as below will in my opinion definitely not. And: it might make the Forum look foolish, and/or raise false expectations about what's going to be in MPI-3 on behalf of some users. We should avoid that So I'd thread very carefully and very modestly (and very clearly) here... Jesper On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:57:57PM +0000, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > Thanks. Good idea. A first take on the subsetting follows: > > The MPI-3 standard is going to provide several substantial extensions to the existing MPI standard. Some of them may or may not be needed for all MPI-3 applications. At the same time, runtime support for the complete set of the MPI-3 features may incur additional implementation complexity and hence probably performance and/or memory space penalty on the rest of the MPI implementation (think dynamic processes in the case of MPI-2, for one). Subsetting, i.e., a facility intended to determine a working subset of the MPI features needed for a particular application, was proposed as one way of managing the increasing complexity of the MPI standard on a per application basis. If such a facility were included into the MPI-3 standard, how useful might that be to you? > > Very valuable > Probably valuable > Probably useless > Useless > Harmful > > ________________________________ > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:48 PM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey > > > I will leave it to Alexander to for a question about subsetting if he wishes to. Here is one about assertions. > > The MPI standard provides certain semantic guarantees that may not be required by a > particular application. It also provides functions that many applications never use. If MPI-3 > provided an "assertions" interface that would let an application identify specific > functionality it does not depend on and an MPI library could improve performance or reduce > memory usage by disabling that specific functionality, how valuable might that interface be? > > Very valuable > Probably valuable > Probably useless > useless > harmful > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > IBM Systems & Technology Group > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org wrote on 11/17/2009 11:40:03 AM: > > > [image removed] > > > > Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey > > > > Jeff Squyres > > > > to: > > > > Main MPI Forum mailing list > > > > 11/17/2009 11:41 AM > > > > Sent by: > > > > mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > > > Please respond to Main MPI Forum mailing list > > > > On Nov 17, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > > > > > No objections - let's go for 2 separate questions, e.g.: > > > > > > "Do you want to achieve higher performance by disabling certain > > > MPI-3 features in your program? > > > > I do not think that this is a well-formed question. > > > > It directly states something that has not been well defined (or even > > accepted) by the Forum. Specifically: it is *by no means guaranteed* > > that you will get higher performance by disabling certain MPI-3 > > features. Heck, we don't even know precisely what MPI-3 features will > > exist! > > > > > "If so, do you prefer subsetting or assertions?" > > > > The others questions contain at least a hint of context so that > > respondents have a clue as to how to answer. This one explains > > neither "subsetting" nor "assertions". I suspect that 95% of > > respondents will not know how to answer. > > > > -- > > Jeff Squyres > > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi-forum mailing list > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel GmbH > Dornacher Strasse 1 > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey
by Supalov, Alexander 17 Nov '09

17 Nov '09

Thanks. Good idea. A first take on the subsetting follows: The MPI-3 standard is going to provide several substantial extensions to the existing MPI standard. Some of them may or may not be needed for all MPI-3 applications. At the same time, runtime support for the complete set of the MPI-3 features may incur additional implementation complexity and hence probably performance and/or memory space penalty on the rest of the MPI implementation (think dynamic processes in the case of MPI-2, for one). Subsetting, i.e., a facility intended to determine a working subset of the MPI features needed for a particular application, was proposed as one way of managing the increasing complexity of the MPI standard on a per application basis. If such a facility were included into the MPI-3 standard, how useful might that be to you? Very valuable Probably valuable Probably useless Useless Harmful ________________________________ From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:48 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey I will leave it to Alexander to for a question about subsetting if he wishes to. Here is one about assertions. The MPI standard provides certain semantic guarantees that may not be required by a particular application. It also provides functions that many applications never use. If MPI-3 provided an "assertions" interface that would let an application identify specific functionality it does not depend on and an MPI library could improve performance or reduce memory usage by disabling that specific functionality, how valuable might that interface be? Very valuable Probably valuable Probably useless useless harmful Dick Treumann - MPI Team IBM Systems & Technology Group Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org wrote on 11/17/2009 11:40:03 AM: > [image removed] > > Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey > > Jeff Squyres > > to: > > Main MPI Forum mailing list > > 11/17/2009 11:41 AM > > Sent by: > > mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > Please respond to Main MPI Forum mailing list > > On Nov 17, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > > > No objections - let's go for 2 separate questions, e.g.: > > > > "Do you want to achieve higher performance by disabling certain > > MPI-3 features in your program? > > I do not think that this is a well-formed question. > > It directly states something that has not been well defined (or even > accepted) by the Forum. Specifically: it is *by no means guaranteed* > that you will get higher performance by disabling certain MPI-3 > features. Heck, we don't even know precisely what MPI-3 features will > exist! > > > "If so, do you prefer subsetting or assertions?" > > The others questions contain at least a hint of context so that > respondents have a clue as to how to answer. This one explains > neither "subsetting" nor "assertions". I suspect that 95% of > respondents will not know how to answer. > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey
by Supalov, Alexander 17 Nov '09

17 Nov '09

We can provide links to the respective tickets, or formulate some explanation as suggested by Dick. -----Original Message----- From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:40 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI user survey On Nov 17, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > No objections - let's go for 2 separate questions, e.g.: > > "Do you want to achieve higher performance by disabling certain > MPI-3 features in your program? I do not think that this is a well-formed question. It directly states something that has not been well defined (or even accepted) by the Forum. Specifically: it is *by no means guaranteed* that you will get higher performance by disabling certain MPI-3 features. Heck, we don't even know precisely what MPI-3 features will exist! > "If so, do you prefer subsetting or assertions?" The others questions contain at least a hint of context so that respondents have a clue as to how to answer. This one explains neither "subsetting" nor "assertions". I suspect that 95% of respondents will not know how to answer. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

1 0