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

Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
by Richard Graham 30 May '12

30 May '12

All I can say to answer your question, is that as a group the forum is NOT consistent, with votes changing drastically from meeting to meeting, even with the same set of folks present. Your ticket is not the only one to suffer from such an outcome, with data represented at meetings being overlooked. Rich -----Original Message----- From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mohamad Chaarawi Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:25 AM To: mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 Hi Rich, On 5/30/2012 3:03 PM, Richard Graham wrote: > Mohamad, > Two items that I wrote down based on comments: > - One view was expressed that adding a nonblocking interface, will > not change the fact that implementation will still be blocking The implementation that UH provides builds on top of libnbc which implements the non-blocking collective communication operations.. They use non blocking point-to-point operations and asynchronous aio_read/aio_write functions. So what part of that is blocking? btw, why was this concern not mentioned during the formal reading or on the I/O mailing list? > - The ticket was rushed, and not ready This ticket was going back and forth for a little less than a year.. I don't any reason why it is considered rushed.. Again most of the I/O chapter committee reviewed and approved it.. Other than final merging issues what was wrong with ticket? and again why were they not brought up till the Japan vote, where we were not there to address them? Thanks, Mohamad > > Rich > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mohamad > Chaarawi > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:37 AM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 > > Hi All, > > I'm still trying to figure out why ticket 273 was voted down. At the last meeting, I would say there was a consensus that the non blocking collective I/O ticket (273) was ready to be voted in. Nobody expressed an objection after me removing the shared file pointer nbc routines and re-reading the draft. All the I/O chapter committee reviewed the draft and commented on the ticket that it looks good. > > At the Japan meeting, we get 8 yes , 2 nos, and 6 abstains, which under the new rules marks the ticket as failed. > None from our organization could attend the meeting to really understand what the 2 no votes were for, and why 6 organizations abstained. > If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand what is being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. If the abstains where for something else, then the votes should be NO. So could someone mention why this was voted down? > > Thanks, > Mohamad > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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] ticket 273
by Richard Graham 30 May '12

30 May '12

We need a clear set of rules, which we follow, regardless of how we feel about the outcome. -----Original Message----- From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Underwood, Keith D Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:21 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 <note to self: don't eat Jeff's brownies> :-) There are scenarios we need to address in the voting, though. Votes that go 1/0/15 shouldn't pass. Votes that go 6/5/5 probably shouldn't pass. Votes that go 8/1/7 clearly suck, and we should stop doing that! Seriously, though, it is not immediately clear that an 8/1/7 vote should pass. If there is that much apathy about a ticket, does the standard need to grow? Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:49 PM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 > > Given that not being in the room means abstain, this new rule gives me > a strong incentive to bake laxative-laced brownies when #281 goes up > for a second vote. > > In other words, I agree that the new rules are stupid and that Mohamad > is quite justified in being annoyed at his ticket being voted down > since it was clearly favored by everyone who cared to voice an opinion. > > Jeff > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> > wrote: > > On May 30, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote: > > > >> If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand > >> what is > being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote > abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. > > > > +1 > > > > -- > > 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 Hammond > Argonne Leadership Computing Facility > University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / > (630) > 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond > https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond > _______________________________________________ > 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] ticket 273
by Mohamad Chaarawi 30 May '12

30 May '12

Hi Rich, On 5/30/2012 3:03 PM, Richard Graham wrote: > Mohamad, > Two items that I wrote down based on comments: > - One view was expressed that adding a nonblocking interface, will not change the fact that implementation will still be blocking The implementation that UH provides builds on top of libnbc which implements the non-blocking collective communication operations.. They use non blocking point-to-point operations and asynchronous aio_read/aio_write functions. So what part of that is blocking? btw, why was this concern not mentioned during the formal reading or on the I/O mailing list? > - The ticket was rushed, and not ready This ticket was going back and forth for a little less than a year.. I don't any reason why it is considered rushed.. Again most of the I/O chapter committee reviewed and approved it.. Other than final merging issues what was wrong with ticket? and again why were they not brought up till the Japan vote, where we were not there to address them? Thanks, Mohamad > > Rich > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mohamad Chaarawi > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:37 AM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 > > Hi All, > > I'm still trying to figure out why ticket 273 was voted down. At the last meeting, I would say there was a consensus that the non blocking collective I/O ticket (273) was ready to be voted in. Nobody expressed an objection after me removing the shared file pointer nbc routines and re-reading the draft. All the I/O chapter committee reviewed the draft and commented on the ticket that it looks good. > > At the Japan meeting, we get 8 yes , 2 nos, and 6 abstains, which under the new rules marks the ticket as failed. > None from our organization could attend the meeting to really understand what the 2 no votes were for, and why 6 organizations abstained. > If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand what is being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. If the abstains where for something else, then the votes should be NO. So could someone mention why this was voted down? > > Thanks, > Mohamad > > _______________________________________________ > 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] ticket 273
by Underwood, Keith D 30 May '12

30 May '12

<note to self: don't eat Jeff's brownies> :-) There are scenarios we need to address in the voting, though. Votes that go 1/0/15 shouldn't pass. Votes that go 6/5/5 probably shouldn't pass. Votes that go 8/1/7 clearly suck, and we should stop doing that! Seriously, though, it is not immediately clear that an 8/1/7 vote should pass. If there is that much apathy about a ticket, does the standard need to grow? Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:49 PM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 > > Given that not being in the room means abstain, this new rule gives me a > strong incentive to bake laxative-laced brownies when #281 goes up for a > second vote. > > In other words, I agree that the new rules are stupid and that Mohamad is > quite justified in being annoyed at his ticket being voted down since it was > clearly favored by everyone who cared to voice an opinion. > > Jeff > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> > wrote: > > On May 30, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote: > > > >> If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand what is > being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote > abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. > > > > +1 > > > > -- > > 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 Hammond > Argonne Leadership Computing Facility > University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) > 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond > https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond > _______________________________________________ > 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] Voting results
by Underwood, Keith D 30 May '12

30 May '12

> On May 30, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Underwood, Keith D wrote: > > > Everyone should note, however, that the answer is irrelevant for > interpreting whether those two items passed. The clarification of "what is > required to pass" was done in the minds of everybody voting before the > votes were taken. We can't change the interpretation of a vote after the > fact. The only redress (if people want one) would be to vote again in July... > maybe voting rules should get their own half day session :-P > > > I hear what you're saying, but Mohammad has an excellent point, too. His > ticket would have passed (easily) under the old rules. They were unable to > attend, and were quite surprised when this ticket failed, despite the Forum > expressing pretty clear consensus. Yes, and that sucks. And, there is no rational way to fix it - short of a time machine. I'm sorry to say that if I had a time machine, this probably isn't the first miscarriage of justice that I would want to fix ;-) Keith

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
by Richard Graham 30 May '12

30 May '12

Mohamad, Two items that I wrote down based on comments: - One view was expressed that adding a nonblocking interface, will not change the fact that implementation will still be blocking - The ticket was rushed, and not ready Rich -----Original Message----- From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mohamad Chaarawi Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:37 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 Hi All, I'm still trying to figure out why ticket 273 was voted down. At the last meeting, I would say there was a consensus that the non blocking collective I/O ticket (273) was ready to be voted in. Nobody expressed an objection after me removing the shared file pointer nbc routines and re-reading the draft. All the I/O chapter committee reviewed the draft and commented on the ticket that it looks good. At the Japan meeting, we get 8 yes , 2 nos, and 6 abstains, which under the new rules marks the ticket as failed. None from our organization could attend the meeting to really understand what the 2 no votes were for, and why 6 organizations abstained. If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand what is being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. If the abstains where for something else, then the votes should be NO. So could someone mention why this was voted down? Thanks, Mohamad _______________________________________________ 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] ticket 273
by Richard Graham 30 May '12

30 May '12

Let's clarify what happened here. I was approached off line by someone that wanted clarification of the rules, with the specific intent of preferring to abstain in some instances, and have it have the same effect as no, rather than voting no explicitly. With the fact that there were several items on the voting agenda that we knew would be close, a decision had to be made as to what "simple majority" means, so we discussed this with all folks in the room and there was no disagreement that simple majority meant more than 50% of the votes. We did delay the votes until all vote eligible members that were supposed to be present arrived. The argument on attendance is inaccurate, attendance was not that different than many US meetings, though less than recently. However, less vote eligible entities were present. Having said that, I do believe that if orgs that sent a representative with directions on how to vote, with the understanding that an abstain reduces the denominator, please let me know. Also, please let me know what vote you would have changed. As far as I know, Microsoft falls under this category, and perhaps IBM and Intel (just guessing based on what I have observed over the last 4 years). If there is no impact, this is a mute point, otherwise, we will have to decide how to proceed. Since this impacts only first votes, that still need to pass a second vote, the final outcome will not change. Rich -----Original Message----- From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:43 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 On May 30, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote: > If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand what is being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. +1 -- 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] Voting results
by Jeff Squyres 30 May '12

30 May '12

On May 30, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Underwood, Keith D wrote: > Everyone should note, however, that the answer is irrelevant for interpreting whether those two items passed. The clarification of "what is required to pass" was done in the minds of everybody voting before the votes were taken. We can't change the interpretation of a vote after the fact. The only redress (if people want one) would be to vote again in July... maybe voting rules should get their own half day session :-P I hear what you're saying, but Mohammad has an excellent point, too. His ticket would have passed (easily) under the old rules. They were unable to attend, and were quite surprised when this ticket failed, despite the Forum expressing pretty clear consensus. -- 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] ticket 273
by Jeff Hammond 30 May '12

30 May '12

Given that not being in the room means abstain, this new rule gives me a strong incentive to bake laxative-laced brownies when #281 goes up for a second vote. In other words, I agree that the new rules are stupid and that Mohamad is quite justified in being annoyed at his ticket being voted down since it was clearly favored by everyone who cared to voice an opinion. Jeff On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > On May 30, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote: > >> If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand what is being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. > > +1 > > -- > 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 Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
by Jeff Squyres 30 May '12

30 May '12

On May 30, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote: > If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand what is being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. +1 -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0