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

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-2.2 has passed
by wyu＠ateneo.edu 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Congratulation to all who have invested hard work and sweat to this. "Sent via BlackBerry from Smart" -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Squyres <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:05:05 To: <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org>; MPI Forum<mpi-22(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Subject: [Mpi-forum] MPI-2.2 has passed Woo hoo! The final vote on the whole MPI-2.2 document was: - yes: 14 - no: 1 - abstain: 2 I'll post the full votes on meetings.mpi-forum.org soon; Bill will post the final final final documents on the mpi-forum.org web site soon. I have tagged SVN (/trunk/MPI-2.2@469 to /tags/MPI-2.2). I also added the official PDFs and .idx file to /tags/MPI-2.2. Congrats to all! -- 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

please sign up on MPI-3 list
by Jeff Squyres 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

A reminder: we're about the dive deeply into MPI-3 discussions. You probably want to sign up on the MPI-3 general mailing list (just like we had the MPI-2.1 and MPI-2.2 mailing lists). Here's the signup page: http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-3 Mails to the MPI-3 list are archived are lists.mpi-forum.org (just like all other MPI Forum lists). Enjoy! -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

MPI-2.2 has passed
by Jeff Squyres 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Woo hoo! The final vote on the whole MPI-2.2 document was: - yes: 14 - no: 1 - abstain: 2 I'll post the full votes on meetings.mpi-forum.org soon; Bill will post the final final final documents on the mpi-forum.org web site soon. I have tagged SVN (/trunk/MPI-2.2@469 to /tags/MPI-2.2). I also added the official PDFs and .idx file to /tags/MPI-2.2. Congrats to all! -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI 2.2 latest pdf
by Rolf Rabenseifner 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

For the meantime until Bill has uploaded https://fs.hlrs.de/projects/par/mpi/mpi22/ and https://fs.hlrs.de/projects/par/mpi/mpi22/doc with mpi22 as user and pw Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . (Office: Allmandring 30)

1 0

MPI 2.2 voting
by Jeff Squyres 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Please join now if you're going to vote on MPI-2.2. We've got limited time to do this... Begin forwarded message: > From: "Jeff Squyres" <messenger(a)webex.com> > Date: September 1, 2009 10:59:28 AM GMT+03:00 > To: "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> > Subject: (Forward to attendees) Meeting invitation: MPI Forum v2.2 > voting > Reply-To: "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> > > **** You can forward this email invitation to attendees **** > > Hello , > > Jeff Squyres invites you to attend this online meeting. > > Topic: MPI Forum v2.2 voting > Date: Friday, September 4, 2009 > Time: 11:00 pm, Northern Europe Summer Time (Helsinki, GMT+03:00) > Meeting Number: 209 434 078 > Meeting Password: mpi22 > > Please click the link below to see more information, or to join the > meeting. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ALERT:Toll-Free Dial Restrictions for (408) and (919) Area Codes > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > As of April 9th, 2009, you can no longer dial toll free in the 408 > or 919 area codes in the United States. The affected toll free > numbers are: (866) 432-9903 for the San Jose/Milpitas area and (866) > 349-3520 for the RTP area. > > Please dial the local access number for your area from the list below: > - San Jose/Milpitas (408) area: 525-6800 > - RTP (919) area: 392-3330 > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the online meeting > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=124769262&UID=0&PW=NOGMzNmMxNDA… > 2. Enter your name and email address. > 3. Enter the meeting password: mpi22 > 4. Click "Join Now". > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the teleconference only > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Dial into Cisco WebEx (view all Global Access Numbers at > http://cisco.com/en/US/about/doing_business/conferencing/index.html > 2. Press 3 to attend the meeting. > 3. Follow the prompts to enter the Meeting Number (listed above) or > Access Code followed by the # sign. > > San Jose, CA: +1.408.525.6800 RTP: +1.919.392.3330 > > US/Canada: +1.866.432.9903 United Kingdom: +44.20.8824.0117 > > India: +91.80.4350.1111 Germany: +49.619.6773.9002 > > Japan: +81.3.5763.9394 China: +86.10.8515.5666 > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the meeting on iPhone > ------------------------------------------------------- > Go to wbx://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales? > MK > = > 209434078 > &MPW=74a1377ac7ba70623116177e932952454f82b8c1d596811c1f3496bb247c2133 > > Don't have the iPhone WebEx application yet? > Go to http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=298844386 > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > For assistance > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/mc > 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". > > You can contact me at: > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > 1-408-525 0971 > > To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft > Outlook), click this link: > https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=124769262&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=… > > The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media > files requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media > files in the meeting, please check whether you have the players > installed on your computer by going to https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/systemdiagnosis.php > > Sign up for a free trial of WebEx > http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial > > http://www.webex.com > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows > audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed > during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you > automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to > the recording, do not join the session. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

MPI-2.2 votes / webex / etc.
by Jeff Squyres 03 Sep '09

03 Sep '09

If you didn't get it from Bill's mail yesterday, we're spending much of the time here in the Helsinki meeting reviewing the 2.2 document and ensuring that it adheres to the MPI Forum's defined procedures (e.g., we were all assigned page ranges last night to double/triple check that no unintentional changes had been made in the 2.2 doc). Everyone here is comfortable with the process. To that end, we do expect to be able to vote on the 2.2 document tomorrow at 11am Helsinki time (Friday, September 4, 2009). The following URL may help adjust it to your local time: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?month=9&day=3&year=2… There will be 18 + 1 votes: 2.2 front matter, 16 chapters, appendix. If all of those pass, then we'll vote on the 2.2 document in its entirety. The "must have attended 2 out of the last 3 meetings" voting rule still applies. One special exception: if you attend the 2.2 voting webex session, that counts as your organization's attendance (in terms of voting rights) for this meeting. Hence, if organization X attended one of the last two Forum meetings *and* organization X attends the webex tomorrow, then organization X is eligible to vote. Here's my list of organizations: - Present and eligible: Argonne Cisco HDF HLRS IBM Indiana U. INRIA Intel Oak Ridge UIUC Sun UAB UTK - Absent but eligible, and indicated that they will be on the webex to vote HP Microsoft NEC Run-Time Computing Solutions - Absent but eligible, but did not (yet) indicate that they want to vote Auburn U. Cray Livermore Los Alamos Mellanox OSU PNNL Sandia Tokyo Inst. Tech U. Tokyo - Not eligible Bull Julich Fjitsu Inst. Adv. Sci. & Eng. LBL Mathworks Myricom QLogic SGI SiCortex (defunct) U. Chicago U. Houston U. Wisconsin -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Deadline for next year's release
by Jesper-Larsson Träff 03 Sep '09

03 Sep '09

dear all, isn't the a large part of all these problems the self-imposed deadlines and self-imposed yearly releases? Is there really consensus that this is the way to proceed? As some of you know, I'm not so happy with the state of 2.2 and think we would have done better by not being so strict about the Helsinki/SC deadline, and I do not think that we do any good (to the user community, to ourselves) by continuing this way. I also agree that waiting for 3 years (until MPI 3.0) for something like NBC is not at all a good idea. Best regards, Jesper On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 04:35:03PM -0500, Martin Schulz wrote: > On Sep 2, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Marc-Andre Hermanns wrote: > > >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 > > While I see the reasoning for getting something out early, I do agree > with Bronis: this schedule seems very aggressive and rushed and > we might not get out of it what we want. > > > > >- we did not agree, yet, what name such a release would have: > > 2.3, 2.9, 3.0, ... (that is to be discussed) > > Personally, I think calling anything with 3.* is a mistake: introducing > just a few new things in 3.0 and then the big additions in a 3.1, > potentially even things that break applications, will be confusing > and not consistent to previous MPI versions. > > > > >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 > > This seems to mean that proposals will have to get feedback from the > forum in January or, if you want to allow for at least one round of > feedback, even in November. This would, in my opinion, rush the > development of proposals as well as their discussion. > > Also, by cramping this so much together and assuming that most > proposals that could make this deadline and should be included > sooner than later make it, the forum will have a large number of big > proposals to go through at a single meeting. > > >years, as I took it from the discussions that everybody present was > >reluctant to have another intermediate release. > > What was the reasoning behind that? Why wouldn't the same reason, > to release important additions early, apply in 2011? > > Martin > > > > > >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 > >_______________________________________________ > >mpi-forum mailing list > >mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >http://*lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jeff Squyres 03 Sep '09

03 Sep '09

I apologize to all for the confusion that my first message in this thread lead to. I failed to give the proper context, which then led to lots of email hell. I think the subsequent emails have clarified much; thanks guys. I do believe that there is still some debate about what exactly to call the SC'10 and SC'11 releases. I think the main point of my email was to say that if you want something in the SC'10 release, by our defined procedures (1st reading, 2 votes, etc.), it needs to be ready by March. Some things are ready already or are close -- it was meant to be a "heads up" for the WGs who are not [well] represented here in Helsinki that we likely will have *something* to release at SC'10 (regardless of what it is called -- "3.0" or otherwise), and that March is the last meeting to have a 1st reading. On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:21 AM, Graham, Richard L. wrote: > What was said today is that we would like to have a first release of > new MPI functionality 3 years after the start of the current forum, > which will be around SC'10. This keeps with the current trend of an > annual update. To meet this goal, first reading needs to be next > spring. What does not make it into that release will need to be a > year later, as we want to get nonblocking collrctives out the door. > > Rich > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Sent: Wed Sep 02 16:57:08 2009 > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Deadline for next year's release > > Rajeev, > > that's how I understood it. Technically probably 3 years from Friday > (after the final vote on 2.2). > > Marc-Andre > > Rajeev Thakur wrote: > >> 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. > > > > Does 3 years mean 3 years from today? > > > > Rajeev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi-forum mailing list > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

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

02 Sep '09

On Sep 3, 2009, at 7:11 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > - Not eligible > Bull ...snipped Note that the "not eligible" list above was inaccurate. I did not take into account that attending the webex session is considered the same as attendance, and therefore is good enough for the "2 out of the last 3" rule. I blame jet lag. :-) Let me make up new lists and send them around... -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

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

02 Sep '09

Here's the list that I have: - Present and eligible: Argonne Cisco HDF HLRS IBM Indiana U. INRIA Intel Oak Ridge UIUC Sun UAB UTK - Absent but eligible and indicated that they want to vote NEC Microsoft - Absent but eligible, but did not indicate that they want to vote Auburn U. Cray Livermore Los Alamos OSU PNNL Sandia - Not eligible Bull Julich Fjitsu HP Inst. Adv. Sci. & Eng. LBL Mathworks Mellanox Myricom QLogic Run-Time Computing Solutions SGI (defunct) SiCortex (defunct) Tokyo Inst. Tech U. Chicago U. Houston U. Tokyo U. Wisconsin On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:42 AM, 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 > -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0