October 2012 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013
by Jeff Squyres 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Richard Graham wrote: > [rich] what is this based on ? http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mpi-forum/2012/10/2291.php http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mpi-forum/2012/10/2295.php HDF snuck in late this morning and added another row before I made the spreadsheet read-only. :-) So there are now 13 responses, not 12. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013
by Richard Graham 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

-----Original Message----- From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 11:43 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013 On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Richard Graham wrote: > We will make "final" decisions here in Dec. > >> From my perspective the decision to be made was between the meeting >> schedule > - Japan, Chicago, SJ, Chicago (what we voted for) And > - Japan, Chicago, Madrid, SJ (with the understanding that meetings in > Japan would be every other year) > > That is what came up at the end of the last meeting. Understood. However, it is worth noting that a very different (organization-based) sentiment has arisen about the March meeting since then. 1. There is fairly negative support for Japan in March. 2. There is unanimous support for Chicago in June. 3. There is clear, overwhelming support for Madrid in September --> many prefer a max of 1 non-US meeting per year, and want it to be Madrid/EuroMPI 4. There is strong support for Chicago in December; somewhat less support for San Jose. [rich] what is this based on ? Rich -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ _______________________________________________ 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] Meeting schedule for 2013
by Jeff Squyres 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Richard Graham wrote: > We will make "final" decisions here in Dec. > >> From my perspective the decision to be made was between the meeting schedule > - Japan, Chicago, SJ, Chicago (what we voted for) > And > - Japan, Chicago, Madrid, SJ (with the understanding that meetings in Japan would be every other year) > > That is what came up at the end of the last meeting. Understood. However, it is worth noting that a very different (organization-based) sentiment has arisen about the March meeting since then. 1. There is fairly negative support for Japan in March. 2. There is unanimous support for Chicago in June. 3. There is clear, overwhelming support for Madrid in September --> many prefer a max of 1 non-US meeting per year, and want it to be Madrid/EuroMPI 4. There is strong support for Chicago in December; somewhat less support for San Jose. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Re: Meeting schedule for 2013
by Barrett, Brian W 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

I guess I don't understand why we're having the discussion at all. We had a vote, the results of which are 3 US meetings, 1 foreign meeting alternating between Japan and EuroMPI's location. Just because people don't like the outcome of the vote doesn't mean it should come up for vote again. Brian On 10/9/12 9:10 AM, "Richard Graham" <richardg(a)mellanox.com> wrote: >We will make "final" decisions here in Dec. > >>From my perspective the decision to be made was between the meeting >>schedule >- Japan, Chicago, SJ, Chicago (what we voted for) >And >- Japan, Chicago, Madrid, SJ (with the understanding that meetings in >Japan would be every other year) > >That is what came up at the end of the last meeting. > >Rich > >-----Original Message----- >From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anthony >Skjellum >Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 11:05 AM >To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013 > >It would be very nice to hold one meeting in San Jose. Is it colder in >Chicago in March or December? Perhaps that could guide the decision. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> >To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:57:08 AM >Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013 > >There were 12 responses on the spreadsheet; many thanks. See the >spreadsheet yourself: > > >https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtJBC25MGsp3dDd3bmhuRllybEpqR >npPbEhZT3JFd3c > >Summary of results (easy ones first), including my conclusions from the >responses: > >1. June meeting is uniformly ok with Chicago on Jun 10-13. One >organization has a conflict with the dates. > --> My conclusion: this meeting is probably ok. > >2. December meeting is uniformly ok with Dec 9-12. 3 votes for San Jose. > 7 votes for Chicago. 3 votes for "don't care". > --> My conclusion: first choice: Chicago, second choice: San Jose > >3. March meeting is uniformly ok with the Mar 11-14 dates. A lot of >"Prefer Chicago" and "Prefer San Jose" votes. Several "Cannot attend if >in Japan" votes, paired with several Japan as last preference for those >who could attend in Japan. 5 votes for "only 1 non-US meeting per year". > --> My conclusion: first choice: Chicago, second choice San Jose, >third choice: Japan. > >==> Sidenote: speaking as a hosting organization -- if we have US >meetings, it would be nice to alternate between Chicago and San Jose (vs. >3 meetings in Chicago). I like the wifi in San Jose better. ;-) > >4. September meeting: most votes about the dates are "don't care" or >"near EuroMPI". 2 votes for before EuroMPI; 1 vote for after EuroMPI. 9 >votes for Madrid/colo with EuroMPI, 4 "don't care". 5 explicit mentions >of "only 1 non-US meeting per year." > --> My conclusion: Madrid, before EuroMPI. > > > >On Oct 3, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > >> On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: >> >>> Therefore, I would like that Jeff is doing a email voting by >>> institutions after we fixed the questions: >> >> I will not do a formal vote on this via email. There's all kinds of >>issues involved with that (e.g., who gets to vote?). >> >> I suggest a much simpler solution. Please visit the following public >>Google spreadsheet and fill in the meeting location/date preferences for >>your organization: >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtJBC25MGsp3dDd3bmhuRllyb >> EpqRnpPbEhZT3JFd3c >> >> This is informal, but please fill it out on a per-organization basis. >> >> *********************************************** >> *** Please do so by COB, Monday, 8 Oct, 2012*** >> *********************************************** >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >> For corporate legal information go to: >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >For corporate legal information go to: >http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > >_______________________________________________ >mpi-forum mailing list >mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > >-- >Anthony Skjellum, PhD >Professor and Chair >Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences >Director, UAB Center for Information Assurance and Joint Forensics >Research ("The Center") >University of Alabama at Birmingham >+1-(205)934-8657; FAX: +1- (205)934-5473 > >___________________________________________ >CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and >may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the >sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, >use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium. > >Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail >_______________________________________________ >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] Meeting schedule for 2013
by Richard Graham 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

We will make "final" decisions here in Dec. >From my perspective the decision to be made was between the meeting schedule - Japan, Chicago, SJ, Chicago (what we voted for) And - Japan, Chicago, Madrid, SJ (with the understanding that meetings in Japan would be every other year) That is what came up at the end of the last meeting. Rich -----Original Message----- From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anthony Skjellum Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 11:05 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013 It would be very nice to hold one meeting in San Jose. Is it colder in Chicago in March or December? Perhaps that could guide the decision. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:57:08 AM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013 There were 12 responses on the spreadsheet; many thanks. See the spreadsheet yourself: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtJBC25MGsp3dDd3bmhuRllybEpqRn… Summary of results (easy ones first), including my conclusions from the responses: 1. June meeting is uniformly ok with Chicago on Jun 10-13. One organization has a conflict with the dates. --> My conclusion: this meeting is probably ok. 2. December meeting is uniformly ok with Dec 9-12. 3 votes for San Jose. 7 votes for Chicago. 3 votes for "don't care". --> My conclusion: first choice: Chicago, second choice: San Jose 3. March meeting is uniformly ok with the Mar 11-14 dates. A lot of "Prefer Chicago" and "Prefer San Jose" votes. Several "Cannot attend if in Japan" votes, paired with several Japan as last preference for those who could attend in Japan. 5 votes for "only 1 non-US meeting per year". --> My conclusion: first choice: Chicago, second choice San Jose, third choice: Japan. ==> Sidenote: speaking as a hosting organization -- if we have US meetings, it would be nice to alternate between Chicago and San Jose (vs. 3 meetings in Chicago). I like the wifi in San Jose better. ;-) 4. September meeting: most votes about the dates are "don't care" or "near EuroMPI". 2 votes for before EuroMPI; 1 vote for after EuroMPI. 9 votes for Madrid/colo with EuroMPI, 4 "don't care". 5 explicit mentions of "only 1 non-US meeting per year." --> My conclusion: Madrid, before EuroMPI. On Oct 3, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > >> Therefore, I would like that Jeff is doing a email voting by >> institutions after we fixed the questions: > > I will not do a formal vote on this via email. There's all kinds of issues involved with that (e.g., who gets to vote?). > > I suggest a much simpler solution. Please visit the following public Google spreadsheet and fill in the meeting location/date preferences for your organization: > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtJBC25MGsp3dDd3bmhuRllyb > EpqRnpPbEhZT3JFd3c > > This is informal, but please fill it out on a per-organization basis. > > *********************************************** > *** Please do so by COB, Monday, 8 Oct, 2012*** > *********************************************** > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Anthony Skjellum, PhD Professor and Chair Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences Director, UAB Center for Information Assurance and Joint Forensics Research ("The Center") University of Alabama at Birmingham +1-(205)934-8657; FAX: +1- (205)934-5473 ___________________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail _______________________________________________ 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] Meeting schedule for 2013
by Anthony Skjellum 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

It would be very nice to hold one meeting in San Jose. Is it colder in Chicago in March or December? Perhaps that could guide the decision. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:57:08 AM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013 There were 12 responses on the spreadsheet; many thanks. See the spreadsheet yourself: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtJBC25MGsp3dDd3bmhuRllybEpqRn… Summary of results (easy ones first), including my conclusions from the responses: 1. June meeting is uniformly ok with Chicago on Jun 10-13. One organization has a conflict with the dates. --> My conclusion: this meeting is probably ok. 2. December meeting is uniformly ok with Dec 9-12. 3 votes for San Jose. 7 votes for Chicago. 3 votes for "don't care". --> My conclusion: first choice: Chicago, second choice: San Jose 3. March meeting is uniformly ok with the Mar 11-14 dates. A lot of "Prefer Chicago" and "Prefer San Jose" votes. Several "Cannot attend if in Japan" votes, paired with several Japan as last preference for those who could attend in Japan. 5 votes for "only 1 non-US meeting per year". --> My conclusion: first choice: Chicago, second choice San Jose, third choice: Japan. ==> Sidenote: speaking as a hosting organization -- if we have US meetings, it would be nice to alternate between Chicago and San Jose (vs. 3 meetings in Chicago). I like the wifi in San Jose better. ;-) 4. September meeting: most votes about the dates are "don't care" or "near EuroMPI". 2 votes for before EuroMPI; 1 vote for after EuroMPI. 9 votes for Madrid/colo with EuroMPI, 4 "don't care". 5 explicit mentions of "only 1 non-US meeting per year." --> My conclusion: Madrid, before EuroMPI. On Oct 3, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > >> Therefore, I would like that Jeff is doing a email voting >> by institutions after we fixed the questions: > > I will not do a formal vote on this via email. There's all kinds of issues involved with that (e.g., who gets to vote?). > > I suggest a much simpler solution. Please visit the following public Google spreadsheet and fill in the meeting location/date preferences for your organization: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtJBC25MGsp3dDd3bmhuRllybEpqRn… > > This is informal, but please fill it out on a per-organization basis. > > *********************************************** > *** Please do so by COB, Monday, 8 Oct, 2012*** > *********************************************** > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Anthony Skjellum, PhD Professor and Chair Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences Director, UAB Center for Information Assurance and Joint Forensics Research ("The Center") University of Alabama at Birmingham +1-(205)934-8657; FAX: +1- (205)934-5473 ___________________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013
by Jeff Squyres 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

There were 12 responses on the spreadsheet; many thanks. See the spreadsheet yourself: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtJBC25MGsp3dDd3bmhuRllybEpqRn… Summary of results (easy ones first), including my conclusions from the responses: 1. June meeting is uniformly ok with Chicago on Jun 10-13. One organization has a conflict with the dates. --> My conclusion: this meeting is probably ok. 2. December meeting is uniformly ok with Dec 9-12. 3 votes for San Jose. 7 votes for Chicago. 3 votes for "don't care". --> My conclusion: first choice: Chicago, second choice: San Jose 3. March meeting is uniformly ok with the Mar 11-14 dates. A lot of "Prefer Chicago" and "Prefer San Jose" votes. Several "Cannot attend if in Japan" votes, paired with several Japan as last preference for those who could attend in Japan. 5 votes for "only 1 non-US meeting per year". --> My conclusion: first choice: Chicago, second choice San Jose, third choice: Japan. ==> Sidenote: speaking as a hosting organization -- if we have US meetings, it would be nice to alternate between Chicago and San Jose (vs. 3 meetings in Chicago). I like the wifi in San Jose better. ;-) 4. September meeting: most votes about the dates are "don't care" or "near EuroMPI". 2 votes for before EuroMPI; 1 vote for after EuroMPI. 9 votes for Madrid/colo with EuroMPI, 4 "don't care". 5 explicit mentions of "only 1 non-US meeting per year." --> My conclusion: Madrid, before EuroMPI. On Oct 3, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > >> Therefore, I would like that Jeff is doing a email voting >> by institutions after we fixed the questions: > > I will not do a formal vote on this via email. There's all kinds of issues involved with that (e.g., who gets to vote?). > > I suggest a much simpler solution. Please visit the following public Google spreadsheet and fill in the meeting location/date preferences for your organization: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtJBC25MGsp3dDd3bmhuRllybEpqRn… > > This is informal, but please fill it out on a per-organization basis. > > *********************************************** > *** Please do so by COB, Monday, 8 Oct, 2012*** > *********************************************** > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

First version ov Dec 2012 MPI Forum meeting
by Richard Graham 07 Oct '12

07 Oct '12

The first version of the agenda for the Dec meeting is now posted online. Please take a look and send requests for corrections. I hope I have included all requests received to date. Thanks, Rich

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Fwd: MPI_Pack max buffer size
by Fab Tillier 03 Oct '12

03 Oct '12

Hi Jeff, Jeff Hammond wrote on Wed, 3 Oct 2012 at 06:58:22 > Unlike many other cases where communicating >2 GB can be done with a > datatype workaround, MPI_PACK/UNPACK seem particularly vulnerable to > the 32-bit integer representation issue. Yeah, MPI_(UN)PACK are a mess. The buffer size being represented by an int is wrong (should be MPI_Aint) and the position being in bytes (thus should also be MPI_Aint). However, if you make position MPI_Aint, you can't pass it in as count to MPI_SEND anymore. The logical conclusion is then that position is a count, but then what is the datatype? I would suggest the datatype is MPI_PACKED since that is what gets passed to MPI_SEND, but the standard talks about bytes, so someone else might think MPI_BYTE. > I don't know whether or not this has been discussed before (and > apologize if my message is redundant). Is there a proposal for > MPI_(UN)PACK_COUNT yet? This was deliberate, and we spent a bit of time discussing it in the past. The primary reason to not address pack/unpack is that you really shouldn't pack/unpack > 2GB buffers. If anything, you would get better parallelism by chunking and interleaving packing and sending if you really must pack. You'd probably be better off still creating a datatype to represent your data and avoid the copying inherent in packing/unpacking. There are of course exceptions, e.g. fast CPU + slow network where compressing the data can yield gains. In any case, getting the little bit of count in that we did was a 3 year effort, and we had to minimize the scope as much as possible. I don't personally plan on proposing updated pack/unpack routines, and I'd much rather see us define extended datatype constructors. Cheers, -Fab > Thanks, > > Jeff > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Christoph Sprenger <csprenger(a)wetafx.co.nz> > Date: Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:10 AM > Subject: [mpich-discuss] MPI_Pack max buffer size > To: mpich-discuss(a)mcs.anl.gov > > > Hi, > > just wanted to double check if there is a way to Pack/Unpack bigger > char buffers than numeric_limits<int>::max() without tokenizing the > message into multiple chunks ? > seems like one of my messages is hitting these bounds unfortunately. > > Cheers, > Christoph > > > > _______________________________________________ mpich-discuss mailing > list mpich-discuss(a)mcs.anl.gov To manage subscription options or > unsubscribe: https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/mpich-discuss > >

1 0

Let's stop using the term "MPI Next"
by Jeff Squyres 03 Oct '12

03 Oct '12

Just to clarify... There was a discussion in Vienna of what the value of <next> should be in the term "MPI <next>", and what kind of content should go into that version of MPI. After some discussion, the room pretty much agreed on general definitions of "MPI-3.1" and "MPI-4.0": *** MPI 3.1: should be small/errata items, analogous to MPI 2.1 and 2.2. ==> With that premise, we should just gather errata over time (e.g., as implementors start/continue implementing, and users start using). Once we get enough errata, and/or enough time goes by (e.g., 1 year? 2 years?), we just incorporate those errata in the document and pass it as 3.1. ==> One non-errata topic that might be suitable for 3.1 is the scalable vector collectives, because they've actually been done for a while, are small / self-contained, and simply ran out of time to get into 3.0. *** MPI 4.0: should be Big New Things (in the same spirit as MPI-3.0 is Big New Things). ==> A brainstorm list of possible MPI 4 topics can be found http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mpi-forum/2012/09/2208.php. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0