FWIW, HP doesn't seem to care any more -- Dave, can you verify/disagree? We haven't seen anyone from Platform comment on this. Dave -- have you pinged Platform to see if they care? IIRC, HP cited a small number of customers who wanted to do this. I know that send/receive were specifically mentioned, but I don't know if it was a side effect of actually wanting to fix the MPI_File stuff or not (i.e., was the real desire to fix the MPI_File stuff and all the rest was done for consistency?). I do know that #117 is woefully out of date; it has many holes -- some of which were partially updated by Dave. On Jan 24, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Rajeev Thakur wrote:
I don't know who wants to communicate >2GB at a time, but HP seemed to have enough users wanting it to cause Kannan to create and pursue ticket #117 until he moved to a different project.
Rajeev
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Underwood, Keith D Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 5:20 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Count
Still seems a little odd to have a solution for I/O functions and not for communication functions (the original ticket was for communication https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/117). If > 2GB can be written from a single process in a single call, they can also be communicated. If it is tedious to break up the write into smaller writes, the same applies to communication.
"can be" and "will be" are very different phrases. The feeling within the group that was there Thursday morning was that the "way 64 bit is done" (TM) is to replicate all of the function calls. The group felt like a compelling case had been made for I/O, because you would want to write all of your memory to file (e.g. checkpointing) and memory per node is growing beyond 2 GB. However, it was much harder to make the case that you really wanted to send that much data from a contiguous location to any other node. In fact, someone made the statement "all of the application users understand that you can't do that and still scale on any network in the foreseeable future".
Your interoperability comments may be a more motivating example, but as of Thursday morning, it was clear that there was not consensus among the forum members who were - especially given the pain that is going to be involved in fixing this for the general case.
Keith
_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
-- Jeff Squyres [email protected]