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

Re: [Mpi-forum] Deadline for next year's release
by Marc-Andre Hermanns 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

Hi all, maybe just to add to Torsten, who wrapped up the discussion quite well. - we (here in Helsinki) agreed that it is vital to get some things out to the user soon (like the NBCs) and not have them wait all the way, till MPI 3.0 is settled - we did not agree, yet, what name such a release would have: 2.3, 2.9, 3.0, ... (that is to be discussed) I think the main message of Jeff's earlier mail was: If you want to get your stuff out soon, you will have to get it to the first reading by march, or you will have to wait till the "big package" is passed in 3 years, as I took it from the discussions that everybody present was reluctant to have another intermediate release. Best regards, Marc-Andre Torsten Hoefler wrote: > Bronis, all, >> Re: >>> Note to everyone who is not in the Helsinki meeting: there was >>> consensus that we want some kind of release in November 2010. The >>> exact name of that release is still TBD (likely "3.0", but there's >>> still some discussion about this), but the point is that WG's need to >>> have text ready for 1st readings by the ***MARCH 2010*** Forum meeting >>> in order to be included in the Nov 2010 release. >>> >>> This is not too far away. >> No, it is not. It does not seem realistic to me. We >> would clearly have the nonblocking collectives ready >> but I don't think much else would be. I think we could >> have a LITTLE of the tools stuff ready. From what I >> have seen, I doubt other WGs will get beyond that... > we talked about a staged release, possibly also MPI 2.3. I don't think > that we rush anything. I'm positive that the FT group could have a > proposal for consistent error codes and smaller things that are very > important for FT by this time. Other groups like the Hybrid WG could > also have something. > > And even if we don't have anything, what can you say against releasing a > smaller incremental version with just NBCs and minor things. > > There was an objection that doing another MPI 2.2-like effort would cost > a lot of the MPI 3 energy. While I fully agree to this, I'd say that > this seems to be a question of policy. We decide what we discuss (and we > should have a good clean base now). > > I would also like to have NBCs in an MPI release that does *not* break > API compatibility. The burden on the user who wants to use NBC would be > too big (imagine that you had to rewrite your 10^6 SLOC MPI program to > run with MPI 3.0 just because you want to use NBCs). A good example for > such an API breaker is the necessary MPI_Count discussion. > > A staged release would also ensure easy implementation and the timely > availability of the compliant MPI implementations (I suspect that we > will see MPI 2.2 adoption rather soon). > > I am really against rush here, we have to evaluate every new proposal as > rigorously as we evaluated NBCs. If a proposal fails the March > "deadline", then it will simply float into the next release. > > All the Best, > Torsten > -- Marc-Andre Hermanns Juelich Supercomputing Centre Institute for Advanced Simulation Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH D-52425 Juelich Germany Phone : +49-2461-61-2054 Fax : +49-2461-61-6656 eMail : m.a.hermanns(a)fz-juelich.de WWW : http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/ JSC is the coordinator of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing and member of the Gauss Centre for Supercomputing Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir'in Baerbel Brumme-Bothe Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr. Harald Bolt, Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Who will vote?
by Erez Haba 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

Microsoft would like to vote but is not present. Where can I find the online voting procedure? When is voting time (PST?) -----Original Message----- From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 1:43 AM To: mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org Subject: [Mpi-forum] Who will vote? Will all organizations who are planning on voting during the Helsinki meeting *but are not planning on being present* (i.e., you will vote during the Webex session), please send me a mail today so that I can prepare my voting worksheet. Thanks. -- 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] Deadline for next year's release
by Torsten Hoefler 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

Bronis, all, > Re: > > Note to everyone who is not in the Helsinki meeting: there was > > consensus that we want some kind of release in November 2010. The > > exact name of that release is still TBD (likely "3.0", but there's > > still some discussion about this), but the point is that WG's need to > > have text ready for 1st readings by the ***MARCH 2010*** Forum meeting > > in order to be included in the Nov 2010 release. > > > > This is not too far away. > > No, it is not. It does not seem realistic to me. We > would clearly have the nonblocking collectives ready > but I don't think much else would be. I think we could > have a LITTLE of the tools stuff ready. From what I > have seen, I doubt other WGs will get beyond that... we talked about a staged release, possibly also MPI 2.3. I don't think that we rush anything. I'm positive that the FT group could have a proposal for consistent error codes and smaller things that are very important for FT by this time. Other groups like the Hybrid WG could also have something. And even if we don't have anything, what can you say against releasing a smaller incremental version with just NBCs and minor things. There was an objection that doing another MPI 2.2-like effort would cost a lot of the MPI 3 energy. While I fully agree to this, I'd say that this seems to be a question of policy. We decide what we discuss (and we should have a good clean base now). I would also like to have NBCs in an MPI release that does *not* break API compatibility. The burden on the user who wants to use NBC would be too big (imagine that you had to rewrite your 10^6 SLOC MPI program to run with MPI 3.0 just because you want to use NBCs). A good example for such an API breaker is the necessary MPI_Count discussion. A staged release would also ensure easy implementation and the timely availability of the compliant MPI implementations (I suspect that we will see MPI 2.2 adoption rather soon). I am really against rush here, we have to evaluate every new proposal as rigorously as we evaluated NBCs. If a proposal fails the March "deadline", then it will simply float into the next release. All the Best, Torsten -- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- Torsten Hoefler | Postdoctoral Fellow Open Systems Lab | Indiana University 150 S. Woodlawn Ave. | Bloomington, IN, 474045, USA Lindley Hall Room 135 | +01 (812) 855-3608

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Who will vote?
by Solt, David George 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

Not eligible to vote yet. Thanks, Dave -----Original Message----- From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 3:43 AM To: mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org Subject: [Mpi-forum] Who will vote? Will all organizations who are planning on voting during the Helsinki meeting *but are not planning on being present* (i.e., you will vote during the Webex session), please send me a mail today so that I can prepare my voting worksheet. Thanks. -- 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] Deadline for next year's release
by Underwood, Keith D 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

> No, it is not. It does not seem realistic to me. We > would clearly have the nonblocking collectives ready > but I don't think much else would be. I think we could > have a LITTLE of the tools stuff ready. From what I > have seen, I doubt other WGs will get beyond that... > I'm pretty sure that Jeff will have his proposal to remove the C++ bindings ready. That's a substantial change, but I think there may be some debate as to whether it is an advance ;-) Keith

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Deadline for next year's release
by Bronis R. de Supinski 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

Jeff: Re: > Note to everyone who is not in the Helsinki meeting: there was > consensus that we want some kind of release in November 2010. The > exact name of that release is still TBD (likely "3.0", but there's > still some discussion about this), but the point is that WG's need to > have text ready for 1st readings by the ***MARCH 2010*** Forum meeting > in order to be included in the Nov 2010 release. > > This is not too far away. No, it is not. It does not seem realistic to me. We would clearly have the nonblocking collectives ready but I don't think much else would be. I think we could have a LITTLE of the tools stuff ready. From what I have seen, I doubt other WGs will get beyond that... > Consider this your fair warning. :-) I think a "consensus" at a meeting with minimal attendance is not much of a consensus. I don't personally have a stake in this buut I think it does not make sense to rush to a version 3.0 that does not make much of an advance. Bronis

1 0

Deadline for next year's release
by Jeff Squyres 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

Note to everyone who is not in the Helsinki meeting: there was consensus that we want some kind of release in November 2010. The exact name of that release is still TBD (likely "3.0", but there's still some discussion about this), but the point is that WG's need to have text ready for 1st readings by the ***MARCH 2010*** Forum meeting in order to be included in the Nov 2010 release. This is not too far away. Consider this your fair warning. :-) -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Who will vote?
by Jennifer Skjellum 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

Hi Jeff, When time is the voting session on Friday (CST time)? On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > Will all organizations who are planning on voting during the Helsinki > meeting *but are not planning on being present* (i.e., you will vote during > the Webex session), please send me a mail today so that I can prepare my > voting worksheet. > > Thanks. > > -- > 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 > -- Jennifer H. Skjellum, President Runtime Computing Solutions, LLC 1500 First Avenue North Suite C112 Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 314-3595 (office) (205) 914-3226 (cell) www.runtimecomputing.com

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Who will vote?
by Jesper-Larsson Träff 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

Dear Jeff, all, NEC will vote, but will not be present at the meeting Best regards, Jesper and Hubert On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 11:42:41AM +0300, Jeff Squyres wrote: > Will all organizations who are planning on voting during the Helsinki > meeting *but are not planning on being present* (i.e., you will vote > during the Webex session), please send me a mail today so that I can > prepare my voting worksheet. > > Thanks. > > -- > 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

Who will vote?
by Jeff Squyres 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

Will all organizations who are planning on voting during the Helsinki meeting *but are not planning on being present* (i.e., you will vote during the Webex session), please send me a mail today so that I can prepare my voting worksheet. Thanks. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0