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

Votes posted
by Jeff Squyres 13 Feb '09

13 Feb '09

General notes and votes from the San Jose meeting have been posted. I'll post slides when I get them. http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2009/02/agenda.php -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

1 0

New field on Trac tickets
by Jeff Squyres 13 Feb '09

13 Feb '09

You may have noticed that there is a new field on the Forum Trac tickets: implementation. *** TICKET OWNERS: Please update this field to the relevant value (see below). The field can be one of several values: - Unnecessary - Waiting - Completed This field is currently blank for all tickets since we just added it; it'll be set to a value the first time anyone modifies a ticket. It'll be set to the default value (unnecessary) unless you explicitly pick a different value. We may add another field or two shortly; these new fields will also be required to be set manually. Hopefully we'll decide on the new field(s) Very Soon so that you can update all the new fields at once. -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

1 0

Slides from meeting
by Jeff Squyres 13 Feb '09

13 Feb '09

There were a small number of slides presented in San Jose -- please be sure to send these to me ASAP so that I can post them. Thanks! -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Active Message working group
by William Gropp 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

This arose during the RMA discussions because AM is a common feature in many (non-MPI) RMA interfaces - since AM is also relevant in other areas (fault tolerance and pt-2-pt among them), a separate group was formed. Bill On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Ron Brightwell wrote: >> There has been a proposal to startup an Active Message working >> group for MPI 3.0. The question I have to the Forum is if there >> enough support for such a group to form. If there is, I will go >> ahead and get this group going. We need 4 organizations to express >> support for this, to start the working group. >> >> ORNL secondï¿½s this request. >> > > This was probably discussed at the meeting, but it seems like this > would fit > in the point-to-point communications working group. What was the > motivation > to have a separate working group, especially given the few number of > items > in the point-to-point working group? > > -Ron > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum William Gropp Deputy Director for Research Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Active Message working group
by Ron Brightwell 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

> There has been a proposal to startup an Active Message working > group for MPI 3.0. The question I have to the Forum is if there > enough support for such a group to form. If there is, I will go > ahead and get this group going. We need 4 organizations to express > support for this, to start the working group. > > ORNL second’s this request. > This was probably discussed at the meeting, but it seems like this would fit in the point-to-point communications working group. What was the motivation to have a separate working group, especially given the few number of items in the point-to-point working group? -Ron

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Active Message working group
by William Gropp 10 Feb '09

10 Feb '09

Illinois supports this request. Bill On Feb 10, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Richard Graham wrote: > There has been a proposal to startup an Active Message working group > for MPI 3.0. The question I have to the Forum is if there enough > support for such a group to form. If there is, I will go ahead and > get this group going. We need 4 organizations to express support > for this, to start the working group. > > ORNL second’s this request. > > Thanks, > Rich > <ATT00001.txt> William Gropp Deputy Director for Research Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Active Message working group
by Darius Buntinas 10 Feb '09

10 Feb '09

ANL supports this request. -d On 02/10/2009 02:53 PM, Richard Graham wrote: > There has been a proposal to startup an Active Message working group for > MPI 3.0. The question I have to the Forum is if there enough support > for such a group to form. If there is, I will go ahead and get this > group going. We need 4 organizations to express support for this, to > start the working group. > > ORNL second’s this request. > > Thanks, > Rich > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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] Active Message working group
by George Bosilca 10 Feb '09

10 Feb '09

UTK support this request. george. On Feb 10, 2009, at 12:53 , Richard Graham wrote: > There has been a proposal to startup an Active Message working group > for MPI 3.0. The question I have to the Forum is if there enough > support for such a group to form. If there is, I will go ahead and > get this group going. We need 4 organizations to express support > for this, to start the working group. > > ORNL secondï¿½s this request. > > Thanks, > Rich > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Active Message working group
by Richard Graham 10 Feb '09

10 Feb '09

There has been a proposal to startup an Active Message working group for MPI 3.0. The question I have to the Forum is if there enough support for such a group to form. If there is, I will go ahead and get this group going. We need 4 organizations to express support for this, to start the working group. ORNL second¹s this request. Thanks, Rich

1 0

MPI 3.0 time line
by Richard Graham 09 Feb '09

09 Feb '09

Here are the time estimates we put up for the MPI 3.0 items that forum members have said are high priority to be considered for the MPI-3 standard. We will come back to this on Wed. Rich

1 0