Thank you, Jeff and Bill,
I believe this survey topic should be discussed out of this mailing list. So, I will create another mailing list to discuss on this. The mailing list will include the members who are not involved in MPI Forum. So, if you want to join the mailing list, just let me know. If you want to argue on this point, you may continue discussing on this mailing list.
Now I am going to show my idea on what Jeff and Bill talked about.
I have noticed that the question in the survey is vague. Let me clarify things on the term "MPI+X."
I think the operator '+' here is vague and not appropriate. In many cases 'X' means OpenMP (CUDA or something). However this means that OpenMP (or CUDA, for example) provides the complemental programming model to MPI and basically the programming models of MPI and "X" are orthogonal. So, with the mathematical sense, it should be noted as "MPI * (times) X" instead of "MPI+X" simply because MPI and X are different things and we cannot add them. The '*' symbol may also mean outer product of them and its spanning space gets bigger, and thus it gets harder for users to program with the combination.
Contrastingly, what Jeff talked about is "Y over (on top of) MPI." We may express it as "Y/MPI" which comes of the English expression of "over." In this case, "Y" is implemented with using MPI to provide something which MPI does not provide. For example, many users use pnetCDF or HDF5, implemented with using MPI-IO, instead of using MPI-IO directly (this is one of the reasons why I did not include any MPI-IO related questions).
The intent of the original survey question is to ask if users are willing to move from using MPI to using some other thing. In the draft survey I asked you to answer already has the question on "MPI+X" and I think we should have another question to ask on "Y/MPI" instead of "Z or MPI."
Finally I thank Jeff and Bill for letting me know on this issue.
-----
Atsushi HORI
ahori(a)riken.jp
https://www.sys.r-ccs.riken.jp
I think it is a valid question in the context of a survey about MPI. It
is about the API they're calling. Other environments may choose to use
MPI in the implementation, but that's not part of their specification.
Could be anything.
On 12/7/2018 12:07 AM, Jeff Hammond via mpi-forum wrote:
> Please stop perpetuating the myth that MPI and PGAS are opposed by
> asking questions that support this false dichotomy.
>
> Lots of folks use MPI via other APIs, whether they be PETSc or Global
> Arrays. Thanks to MPI-3 RMA, PGAS can be just another abstraction
> layer on top of MPI.
>
> /Do you have any plan (to investigate) to switch from using MPI to
> using any other parallel language/library? */
> /A PGAS language (UPC, Coarray Fortran, OpenSHMEM, XcalableMP, ...)/
>
> GCC/OpenCoarrays and Intel MPI both use MPI-3 RMA as a/the
> communication layer. OSHMPI is very close to a 1:1 mapping between
> OpenSHMEM and MPI-3 RMA. UPC could be ported to MPI-3 RMA with
> dynamic windows if someone cared.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:19 PM Atsushi HORI via mpi-forum
> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]>>
> wrote:
>
> Hello, MPI Forum members,
>
> I, George Bosilca (UT/ICL) and Emmanuel Jeannot (Inria) are
> working on conducting international MPI survey to reveal the
> differences among countries and/or regions around the world. I
> had a chance to talk on this project at the MPI Forum meeting in
> San Jose and many attendees agreed to help our project. You can
> find the attached PDF file which was presented at the MPI Forum
> meeting.
>
> I would like you to go to the GoogleDoc (Google account is required)
>
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfWLWsuhr4opqvn1FL5c8p7Ysz-oclZEMl…
>
> to fill in your answers. At the end of the survey, I added some
> questions only for MPI forum members so that you can leave your
> comments on our survey.
>
> It is designed to be short and easy. I am quite sure you can
> answer all questions in 5 minutes. I hope some MPI Forum attendees
> can answer the survey at airport while you are waiting for your
> flight.
>
> The deadline for MPI forum members is next <<<< Tuesday 11, Dec >>>>.
>
> The survey in production will be conducted in the upcoming January
> 2019, hopefully. The first draft report will be available to all
> of you in April 2019.
>
> -----
> Atsushi HORI
> ahori(a)riken.jp <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.sys.r-ccs.riken.jp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Hammond
> jeff.science(a)gmail.com <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://jeffhammond.github.io/
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum
I too found some of these questions impossible to answer because none of the available answers was accurate enough, and I gave up rather than provide misleading results.
I do think that this specific question is almost ok, but I really think that it is better to address the requirements for not programming *directly* in MPI. Such a question would be better at getting at the root cause of a change, including identifying lack of understanding of the capabilities of MPI.
The example in this space that drives me as nuts as this drove Jeff is talks that say “We have to use XX to support dynamic tasking instead of using MPI” only to discover, half way through the talk, that XX is implemented successfully *entirely* on top of MPI. The root issue is not “I can’t do this with MPI”, it is “I want more support for my specific needs than is part of MPI itself”. Particularly because one of the original goals of MPI was to support the construction of tools, this is a *vital* distinction, making it clear the need for *both* MPI and for higher-level tools. It is not an either-or situation.
Such questionnaires are hard to write; I volunteer to provide feedback should you want to revise it.
Bill
William Gropp
Director and Chief Scientist, NCSA
Thomas M. Siebel Chair in Computer Science
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> On Dec 6, 2018, at 11:07 PM, Jeff Hammond via mpi-forum <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote:
>
> Please stop perpetuating the myth that MPI and PGAS are opposed by asking questions that support this false dichotomy.
>
> Lots of folks use MPI via other APIs, whether they be PETSc or Global Arrays. Thanks to MPI-3 RMA, PGAS can be just another abstraction layer on top of MPI.
>
> Do you have any plan (to investigate) to switch from using MPI to using any other parallel language/library? *
> A PGAS language (UPC, Coarray Fortran, OpenSHMEM, XcalableMP, ...)
>
> GCC/OpenCoarrays and Intel MPI both use MPI-3 RMA as a/the communication layer. OSHMPI is very close to a 1:1 mapping between OpenSHMEM and MPI-3 RMA. UPC could be ported to MPI-3 RMA with dynamic windows if someone cared.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:19 PM Atsushi HORI via mpi-forum <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hello, MPI Forum members,
>
> I, George Bosilca (UT/ICL) and Emmanuel Jeannot (Inria) are working on conducting international MPI survey to reveal the differences among countries and/or regions around the world. I had a chance to talk on this project at the MPI Forum meeting in San Jose and many attendees agreed to help our project. You can find the attached PDF file which was presented at the MPI Forum meeting.
>
> I would like you to go to the GoogleDoc (Google account is required)
>
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfWLWsuhr4opqvn1FL5c8p7Ysz-oclZEMl… <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfWLWsuhr4opqvn1FL5c8p7Ysz-oclZEMl…>
>
> to fill in your answers. At the end of the survey, I added some questions only for MPI forum members so that you can leave your comments on our survey.
>
> It is designed to be short and easy. I am quite sure you can answer all questions in 5 minutes. I hope some MPI Forum attendees can answer the survey at airport while you are waiting for your flight.
>
> The deadline for MPI forum members is next <<<< Tuesday 11, Dec >>>>.
>
> The survey in production will be conducted in the upcoming January 2019, hopefully. The first draft report will be available to all of you in April 2019.
>
> -----
> Atsushi HORI
> ahori(a)riken.jp <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.sys.r-ccs.riken.jp <https://www.sys.r-ccs.riken.jp/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum <https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Hammond
> jeff.science(a)gmail.com <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://jeffhammond.github.io/ <http://jeffhammond.github.io/>_______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum
Please stop perpetuating the myth that MPI and PGAS are opposed by asking
questions that support this false dichotomy.
Lots of folks use MPI via other APIs, whether they be PETSc or Global
Arrays. Thanks to MPI-3 RMA, PGAS can be just another abstraction layer on
top of MPI.
*Do you have any plan (to investigate) to switch from using MPI to using
any other parallel language/library? **
*A PGAS language (UPC, Coarray Fortran, OpenSHMEM, XcalableMP, ...)*
GCC/OpenCoarrays and Intel MPI both use MPI-3 RMA as a/the communication
layer. OSHMPI is very close to a 1:1 mapping between OpenSHMEM and MPI-3
RMA. UPC could be ported to MPI-3 RMA with dynamic windows if someone
cared.
Jeff
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:19 PM Atsushi HORI via mpi-forum <
mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote:
> Hello, MPI Forum members,
>
> I, George Bosilca (UT/ICL) and Emmanuel Jeannot (Inria) are working on
> conducting international MPI survey to reveal the differences among
> countries and/or regions around the world. I had a chance to talk on this
> project at the MPI Forum meeting in San Jose and many attendees agreed to
> help our project. You can find the attached PDF file which was presented at
> the MPI Forum meeting.
>
> I would like you to go to the GoogleDoc (Google account is required)
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfWLWsuhr4opqvn1FL5c8p7Ysz-oclZEMl…
>
> to fill in your answers. At the end of the survey, I added some questions
> only for MPI forum members so that you can leave your comments on our
> survey.
>
> It is designed to be short and easy. I am quite sure you can answer all
> questions in 5 minutes. I hope some MPI Forum attendees can answer the
> survey at airport while you are waiting for your flight.
>
> The deadline for MPI forum members is next <<<< Tuesday 11, Dec >>>>.
>
> The survey in production will be conducted in the upcoming January 2019,
> hopefully. The first draft report will be available to all of you in April
> 2019.
>
> -----
> Atsushi HORI
> ahori(a)riken.jp
> https://www.sys.r-ccs.riken.jp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum
>
--
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science(a)gmail.com
http://jeffhammond.github.io/
Hello, MPI Forum members,
I, George Bosilca (UT/ICL) and Emmanuel Jeannot (Inria) are working on conducting international MPI survey to reveal the differences among countries and/or regions around the world. I had a chance to talk on this project at the MPI Forum meeting in San Jose and many attendees agreed to help our project. You can find the attached PDF file which was presented at the MPI Forum meeting.
I would like you to go to the GoogleDoc (Google account is required)
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfWLWsuhr4opqvn1FL5c8p7Ysz-oclZEMl…
to fill in your answers. At the end of the survey, I added some questions only for MPI forum members so that you can leave your comments on our survey.
It is designed to be short and easy. I am quite sure you can answer all questions in 5 minutes. I hope some MPI Forum attendees can answer the survey at airport while you are waiting for your flight.
The deadline for MPI forum members is next <<<< Tuesday 11, Dec >>>>.
The survey in production will be conducted in the upcoming January 2019, hopefully. The first draft report will be available to all of you in April 2019.
-----
Atsushi HORI
ahori(a)riken.jp
https://www.sys.r-ccs.riken.jp
Hi all,
Here’s the Doodle poll to vote for the schedule of the upcoming virtual meetings. I’ll close the vote on Dec 6 at 9am Pacific US so we can make the determination after the votes tomorrow.
https://doodle.com/poll/bdbt67kw8f785dxh
Thanks,
Wesley
