- Mpi3-subsetting - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi3-subsetting] agenda for subsetting kickoff telecon ww09
by unknown＠example.com 28 Feb '08

28 Feb '08

All: OK, I have to respond to the notion that derived datatypes limit performance. It is just not a reasonable position. Sure, if you can send contiguous locations, you will get higher performance. The problem is that codes do not only need to send contiguous data so that is not an adequate reason to say derived datatypes limit performance. So, what is left? That there is some more efficient way to send non-contiguous data? How? As multiple messages, each of which send contiguous data? If so, then the implementation could do this under the covers and the datatypes are just a convenience for the user not to have to specify the individual sends. OK, suppose that's not the reason. Perhaps the user can do the copying into a contiguous buffer and get better performance? While I have seen this hold with some implementations, it is absurd. There is no reason that I can discern as to why the user should be able to deduce a better copying mechanism than the MPI implementer. So, again, at worst, the datatypes should be a convenience. Do you have an alternative reason or a refutation of these opinions? What is more important, it is certainly possible to build scatter/gather support into a NIC and achieve better performance with datatypes than without. While there are issues to be resolved for that (primarily the issue of pinning memory), they are solvable with the right hardware mechanism. Just because it does not yet exist is not an adequate reason to say "Get rid of datatypes". OK, you are not saying that but you are saying to deprecate them in a sense. And saying you could send contiguous sends more efficiently is a bad argument here. How do datatypes cause inefficiency for that? How much is that cost really? At what point do you hit where the answer is "It would be faster not to compute anything"? Bronis On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks. What subsets inside the current standard would you propose? What > interfaces between them would you envision? > > Good idea about the optimization opportunities. Here's an initial > combined list, with the main benefits as I see them. Please > comment/extend. > > - Dynamic process support: less overhead in the progress engine, easier > global rank handling. > - Heterogeneity: better memory footprint, easier data handling. > - Derived datatypes (especially those with holes): better memory > footprint. > - MPI_ANY_SOURCE: faster, more simple multifabric progress. > - File I/O: smaller requests, easier wait/test functions. > - One-sided ops: no passive target w/o MPI calls - no extra progress > thread. > - Communicator & group management: better memory footprint. > - Message tagging: better support for stable dataflow exchanges, smaller > packets. > - Non-blocking communication: easier ordering, simplified request > handling. > > Best regards. > > Alexander > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi3-subsetting-bounces_at_[hidden] > [mailto:mpi3-subsetting-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of > Torsten Hoefler > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:08 AM > To: mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden] > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-subsetting] agenda for subsetting kickoff telecon > ww09 > > Hi, > > Present: Leonid Meyerguz (Microsoft), Rich Graham (ORNL), Richard > Barrett > > (ORNL), Torsten Hoefler (ISU), Alexander Supalov (Intel) > just for the record, it's "IU" not "ISU" :-) > > > - Scope of the effort > > - Rich > > - Minimum subset consistent with the rest of MPI, for > > performance/memory footprint optimization > > - Danger of splitting MPI, hence against optional features in > the > > standard > I back that (danger of optional features for portability). I'd propose > to split the current standard into mostly self-contained subsets that > have clearly defined interfaces to the rest of the standard. Note: this > only defines logical interfaces, that does *not* define how those things > are to be implemented. This makes it easier to understand the standard > and have separate (portable) libraries for the subsets, it does not > influence optimization possibilities by implementing everything in a > monolithic block (i.e., central progress). > > > - Both blocking & nonblocking belong to the core > > - Torsten > > - Some collectives may go into selectable subsets > I see three subsets: blocking colls, non-blocking colls and topological > colls (maybe also blocking / non-blocking). > > > - MPI_ANY_SOURCE considered harmful > I'd like to add datatypes and heterogeneity to this list (with regards > to performance). Alexander mentioned the dynamics. I think we should > have a lit of items ready that could influence optimization > possibilities significanty if they were to be announced by the user > before he can use them. That would give another strong argument for the > subsetting. > > Best, > Torsten > > -- > bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- > Indiana University | http://www.indiana.edu > Open Systems Lab | http://osl.iu.edu/ > 150 S. Woodlawn Ave. | Bloomington, IN, 474045-7104 | USA > Lindley Hall Room 135 | +01 (812) 855-3608 > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-subsetting mailing list > Mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-subsetting > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel GmbH > Dornacher Strasse 1 > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-subsetting mailing list > Mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-subsetting >

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-subsetting] agenda for subsetting kickoff telecon ww09
by unknown＠example.com 28 Feb '08

28 Feb '08

Hi Alexander, > Thanks. What subsets inside the current standard would you propose? > What interfaces between them would you envision? that is a long discussion, I guess. So just to put something up for discussion: One subset could be collective communication and it would use Send/Recv from the MPI-core interface. Same for non-blockong colls (using nonblocking send/recv). Again, this is a logical design, it enables us to easily implement a portable library that only uses this interface and offers the standardized features. This library can be imported by vendors who do not want to optimize the substet that is supported by the lib. However, the MPI implementor is free to ignore the interface and do the collectives inside the library in a monolithic way (for performance). Other subsets could be: - topology functions - language bindings (certainly needs discussion) - data-type handling - groups/communicator handling (interface definition would be complex) - profiling interface (similar to language bindings) - parallel I/O - process management - one-sided (if this is not in core) - grequests > Good idea about the optimization opportunities. Here's an initial > combined list, with the main benefits as I see them. Please > comment/extend. > > - Dynamic process support: less overhead in the progress engine, easier > global rank handling. ack > - Heterogeneity: better memory footprint, easier data handling. easier equals faster in this case > - Derived datatypes (especially those with holes): better memory > footprint. hmm, I don't get the memory footprint argument? But I'd say that it simplifies the critical path (one if less) and many applications just don't need datatypes. This is necessary if we want to broaden our scope (cf. the sockets interface has no datatypes and works well) > - MPI_ANY_SOURCE: faster, more simple multifabric progress. ack + receiver-based protocols (I wrote about this in "Optimizing non-blocking Collective Operations for InfiniBand" will be presented at the CAC workshop at IPDPS'07. > - File I/O: smaller requests, easier wait/test functions. yes > - One-sided ops: no passive target w/o MPI calls - no extra progress > thread. > - Communicator & group management: better memory footprint. > - Message tagging: better support for stable dataflow exchanges, smaller > packets. ack > - Non-blocking communication: easier ordering, simplified request > handling. I am not sure about this since only the local matching differs (slightly) here, i.e., packets match a waiting recv (potentially dozens of them in different threads) vs. packets match a non-blocking request. This is pretty much the same overhead. How does that influence MPIs ordering constraints? Best, Torsten -- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- Indiana University | http://www.indiana.edu Open Systems Lab | http://osl.iu.edu/ 150 S. Woodlawn Ave. | Bloomington, IN, 474045-7104 | USA Lindley Hall Room 135 | +01 (812) 855-3608

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-subsetting] agenda for subsetting kickoff telecon ww09
by unknown＠example.com 28 Feb '08

28 Feb '08

Hi, Thanks. What subsets inside the current standard would you propose? What interfaces between them would you envision? Good idea about the optimization opportunities. Here's an initial combined list, with the main benefits as I see them. Please comment/extend. - Dynamic process support: less overhead in the progress engine, easier global rank handling. - Heterogeneity: better memory footprint, easier data handling. - Derived datatypes (especially those with holes): better memory footprint. - MPI_ANY_SOURCE: faster, more simple multifabric progress. - File I/O: smaller requests, easier wait/test functions. - One-sided ops: no passive target w/o MPI calls - no extra progress thread. - Communicator & group management: better memory footprint. - Message tagging: better support for stable dataflow exchanges, smaller packets. - Non-blocking communication: easier ordering, simplified request handling. Best regards. Alexander -----Original Message----- From: mpi3-subsetting-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-subsetting-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Torsten Hoefler Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:08 AM To: mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden] Subject: Re: [Mpi3-subsetting] agenda for subsetting kickoff telecon ww09 Hi, > Present: Leonid Meyerguz (Microsoft), Rich Graham (ORNL), Richard Barrett > (ORNL), Torsten Hoefler (ISU), Alexander Supalov (Intel) just for the record, it's "IU" not "ISU" :-) > - Scope of the effort > - Rich > - Minimum subset consistent with the rest of MPI, for > performance/memory footprint optimization > - Danger of splitting MPI, hence against optional features in the > standard I back that (danger of optional features for portability). I'd propose to split the current standard into mostly self-contained subsets that have clearly defined interfaces to the rest of the standard. Note: this only defines logical interfaces, that does *not* define how those things are to be implemented. This makes it easier to understand the standard and have separate (portable) libraries for the subsets, it does not influence optimization possibilities by implementing everything in a monolithic block (i.e., central progress). > - Both blocking & nonblocking belong to the core > - Torsten > - Some collectives may go into selectable subsets I see three subsets: blocking colls, non-blocking colls and topological colls (maybe also blocking / non-blocking). > - MPI_ANY_SOURCE considered harmful I'd like to add datatypes and heterogeneity to this list (with regards to performance). Alexander mentioned the dynamics. I think we should have a lit of items ready that could influence optimization possibilities significanty if they were to be announced by the user before he can use them. That would give another strong argument for the subsetting. Best, Torsten -- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- Indiana University | http://www.indiana.edu Open Systems Lab | http://osl.iu.edu/ 150 S. Woodlawn Ave. | Bloomington, IN, 474045-7104 | USA Lindley Hall Room 135 | +01 (812) 855-3608 _______________________________________________ Mpi3-subsetting mailing list Mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-subsetting --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-subsetting] agenda for subsetting kickoff telecon ww09
by unknown＠example.com 28 Feb '08

28 Feb '08

Hi, > Present: Leonid Meyerguz (Microsoft), Rich Graham (ORNL), Richard Barrett > (ORNL), Torsten Hoefler (ISU), Alexander Supalov (Intel) just for the record, it's "IU" not "ISU" :-) > - Scope of the effort > - Rich > - Minimum subset consistent with the rest of MPI, for > performance/memory footprint optimization > - Danger of splitting MPI, hence against optional features in the > standard I back that (danger of optional features for portability). I'd propose to split the current standard into mostly self-contained subsets that have clearly defined interfaces to the rest of the standard. Note: this only defines logical interfaces, that does *not* define how those things are to be implemented. This makes it easier to understand the standard and have separate (portable) libraries for the subsets, it does not influence optimization possibilities by implementing everything in a monolithic block (i.e., central progress). > - Both blocking & nonblocking belong to the core > - Torsten > - Some collectives may go into selectable subsets I see three subsets: blocking colls, non-blocking colls and topological colls (maybe also blocking / non-blocking). > - MPI_ANY_SOURCE considered harmful I'd like to add datatypes and heterogeneity to this list (with regards to performance). Alexander mentioned the dynamics. I think we should have a lit of items ready that could influence optimization possibilities significanty if they were to be announced by the user before he can use them. That would give another strong argument for the subsetting. Best, Torsten -- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- Indiana University | http://www.indiana.edu Open Systems Lab | http://osl.iu.edu/ 150 S. Woodlawn Ave. | Bloomington, IN, 474045-7104 | USA Lindley Hall Room 135 | +01 (812) 855-3608

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-subsetting] agenda for subsetting kickoff telecon ww09
by unknown＠example.com 28 Feb '08

28 Feb '08

Hi everybody, Thank you for your time today. It was a very good discussion. Here's what I captured (please add/modify what I may have missed): Present: Leonid Meyerguz (Microsoft), Rich Graham (ORNL), Richard Barrett (ORNL), Torsten Hoefler (ISU), Alexander Supalov (Intel) - Opens & introductions - Scope of the effort - Rich - Minimum subset consistent with the rest of MPI, for performance/memory footprint optimization - Danger of splitting MPI, hence against optional features in the standard - Both blocking & nonblocking belong to the core - Torsten - Some collectives may go into selectable subsets - MPI_ANY_SOURCE considered harmful - Leonid - Flexible support for optional features, means for choosing and advertising level of compliance/set of features - See enclosed email for Alexander's POV - General discussion snapshots - Support of subsets: some or all? If some, possible linkage problems in static apps (or dead calls). If all, where's the gain? - Optional: really optional (may be not present) or selectable (are present but may be unused)? - Performance penalty for unused subsets: implementation matter or standard choice? - Portability may be limited to certain class of applications (think FT, master-slave runs) - All we design needs to be implementable, complexity needs to be controlled - An ability to use certain set of subsets should not preclude pulling in other modules if necessary - Whatever we do, it should not conflict with the ABI efforts - Need to stay nice and be nicer wrt to the libraries (think threading) and keep things simple - The simplification argument, if put first, may not be liked by some - Next steps - Please comment on these minutes, and add/modify what I may have missed - I'll prepare a couple of slides by next week summarizing our discussion so far; again, your feedback will be most welcome - At the meeting, it may be great to meet F2F briefly and discuss any eventual loose ends before the presentation at the Forum; I'll see to this Best regards. Alexander -- Dr Alexander Supalov Intel GmbH Hermuelheimer Strasse 8a 50321 Bruehl, Germany Phone: +49 2232 209034 Mobile: +49 173 511 8735 Fax: +49 2232 209029 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. <strong>attached mail follows:</strong> Hi everybody, In the run-up to our kick-off, here's my POV on the subsetting and its possible scope/role in the MPI-3. Your comments and suggestions are most welcome. We start this activity because: 1) Certain industrial customers complain about MPI complexity and inadequacy 2) Complexity is going to grow in MPI-3 3) Growing complexity may have growing performance implications As a result of the above, customers drift away from the MPI to home-grown libraries, usually based on sockets. This effectively eliminates fast networks from their scope, unless they can profit from fast IP emulation layers. Moreover, this customer drift, if continued, may make MPI irrelevant in some HPC areas and lead to creation of alternative interfaces there. The main purpose of the Forum, as well as the subsetting WG, is thus to react to customer demand and make MPI faster and easier to use, especially in those areas that are subjected to the increasing customer drift (think, e.g., massive master-slave computations). Basing on these premises, the subsetting, in my mind, should try to: 1) Make MPI standard modular. This may include: a) Splitting the standard functionality into coherent groups that users will be able to select/deselect at init time b) Making implementation of some modules/functionality optional (think dynamic process support) as they are anyway now c) Addressing not only functional groups but also certain aspects of the standard that may not be needed in certain use cases (think communicator management, message tagging, derived datatypes, MPI_ANY_SOURCE support, non-blocking communication, etc.) 2) As part of the modularization, optionally identify the minimum functional MPI subset. This may be: a) Those 6 calls (Init, Rank, Size, Send, Recv, Finalize), possibly w/o communicator management and derived datatypes. b) A more flexible combination of modules actually needed by the user 3) Connect subsetting with other MPI-3 activities (FT, ABI, collectives, etc.) As a result of modularization, we should strive to achieve 1) Simplification of the standard for the newcomers 2) Performance advantages for reasonable module combinations 3) Influence upon the overall shape of the MPI-3 standard There are certainly quite a few concerns here: 1) We may end up complicating the standard and its implementation even further 2) We may facilitate a split of the standard into several mutually incompatible implementation "families" 3) We may cause some valid MPI-3 applications break if they use optional modules not available in the implementation involved 4) We may get carried away by academic considerations and miss the actual customer demands in the process 5) We may be engaging into a lost battle because the MPI standard is way too rigid by design/purpose to be simplified To guard against all this, we need to work closely with other WGs and the Forum as a whole, define our goals as early as possible, and solicit extensive Forum and customer feedback. >From all this, by the time of the Forum meeting in March, we should have at least a couple of slides reflecting our intentions and plans. Best regards. Alexander -- Dr Alexander Supalov Intel GmbH Hermuelheimer Strasse 8a 50321 Bruehl, Germany Phone: +49 2232 209034 Mobile: +49 173 511 8735 Fax: +49 2232 209029 *

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-subsetting] Subsetting scope: a POV
by unknown＠example.com 26 Feb '08

26 Feb '08

Alexander: Re: > We start this activity because: > > 1) Certain industrial customers complain about MPI complexity and > inadequacy While this is a legitimate concern, it cannot be allowed to cause the standard to devolve into a fractured morass that removes the portability of MPI programs that has been a key aspect in the success of MPI. > 2) Complexity is going to grow in MPI-3 True. And it is not clear that many of the proposed extensions are required for portable programming. In fact, they could be designed with the idea that they are optional in mind. > 3) Growing complexity may have growing performance implications > > As a result of the above, customers drift away from the MPI to > home-grown libraries, usually based on sockets. This effectively > eliminates fast networks from their scope, unless they can profit from > fast IP emulation layers. Moreover, this customer drift, if continued, > may make MPI irrelevant in some HPC areas and lead to creation of > alternative interfaces there. > > The main purpose of the Forum, as well as the subsetting WG, is thus to > react to customer demand and make MPI faster and easier to use, > especially in those areas that are subjected to the increasing customer > drift (think, e.g., massive master-slave computations). > > Basing on these premises, the subsetting, in my mind, should try to: > > 1) Make MPI standard modular. This may include: > a) Splitting the standard functionality into coherent groups that > users will be able to select/deselect at init time > b) Making implementation of some modules/functionality optional > (think dynamic process support) as they are anyway now The key issue will de defining what is optional. Clearly, dynamic process support is a good candidate since it already effectively is. However, most of the functions from MPI-1 are not (there may be some concepts/features that can be -- perhaps wild cards and topologies) but the main communication functions (particularly the full set of collectives) are not; nor is the profiling interface (in fact one could argue that the profiling interface could subsetted in corrspondence to the user level subsetting; it's not clear anything else makes sense). > c) Addressing not only functional groups but also certain aspects of > the standard that may not be needed in certain use cases (think > communicator management, message tagging, derived datatypes, > MPI_ANY_SOURCE support, non-blocking communication, etc.) > > 2) As part of the modularization, optionally identify the minimum > functional MPI subset. This may be: > a) Those 6 calls (Init, Rank, Size, Send, Recv, Finalize), possibly > w/o communicator management and derived datatypes. This may be a reasonable set. One thing that needs to be stated is that the minimal subset should not be the only non-optional one. If you do that, then portability is lost. > b) A more flexible combination of modules actually needed by the > user > > 3) Connect subsetting with other MPI-3 activities (FT, ABI, collectives, > etc.) > > As a result of modularization, we should strive to achieve > > 1) Simplification of the standard for the newcomers > 2) Performance advantages for reasonable module combinations > 3) Influence upon the overall shape of the MPI-3 standard > > There are certainly quite a few concerns here: > > 1) We may end up complicating the standard and its implementation even > further > 2) We may facilitate a split of the standard into several mutually > incompatible implementation "families" Yes, this probably the most significant concern. You can certainly subset the standard without making it more complicated but the obvious way to do it easily results in this problem. > 3) We may cause some valid MPI-3 applications break if they use optional > modules not available in the implementation involved A publish/subscribe query interface is clearly a minimal part of what needs to be provided. Bronis > 4) We may get carried away by academic considerations and miss the > actual customer demands in the process > 5) We may be engaging into a lost battle because the MPI standard is way > too rigid by design/purpose to be simplified > > To guard against all this, we need to work closely with other WGs and > the Forum as a whole, define our goals as early as possible, and solicit > extensive Forum and customer feedback. > > >From all this, by the time of the Forum meeting in March, we should have > at least a couple of slides reflecting our intentions and plans. > > Best regards. > > Alexander > > -- > Dr Alexander Supalov > Intel GmbH > Hermuelheimer Strasse 8a > 50321 Bruehl, Germany > Phone: +49 2232 209034 > Mobile: +49 173 511 8735 > Fax: +49 2232 209029 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel GmbH > Dornacher Strasse 1 > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >

1 0

Subsetting scope: a POV
by unknown＠example.com 26 Feb '08

26 Feb '08

Hi everybody, In the run-up to our kick-off, here's my POV on the subsetting and its possible scope/role in the MPI-3. Your comments and suggestions are most welcome. We start this activity because: 1) Certain industrial customers complain about MPI complexity and inadequacy 2) Complexity is going to grow in MPI-3 3) Growing complexity may have growing performance implications As a result of the above, customers drift away from the MPI to home-grown libraries, usually based on sockets. This effectively eliminates fast networks from their scope, unless they can profit from fast IP emulation layers. Moreover, this customer drift, if continued, may make MPI irrelevant in some HPC areas and lead to creation of alternative interfaces there. The main purpose of the Forum, as well as the subsetting WG, is thus to react to customer demand and make MPI faster and easier to use, especially in those areas that are subjected to the increasing customer drift (think, e.g., massive master-slave computations). Basing on these premises, the subsetting, in my mind, should try to: 1) Make MPI standard modular. This may include: a) Splitting the standard functionality into coherent groups that users will be able to select/deselect at init time b) Making implementation of some modules/functionality optional (think dynamic process support) as they are anyway now c) Addressing not only functional groups but also certain aspects of the standard that may not be needed in certain use cases (think communicator management, message tagging, derived datatypes, MPI_ANY_SOURCE support, non-blocking communication, etc.) 2) As part of the modularization, optionally identify the minimum functional MPI subset. This may be: a) Those 6 calls (Init, Rank, Size, Send, Recv, Finalize), possibly w/o communicator management and derived datatypes. b) A more flexible combination of modules actually needed by the user 3) Connect subsetting with other MPI-3 activities (FT, ABI, collectives, etc.) As a result of modularization, we should strive to achieve 1) Simplification of the standard for the newcomers 2) Performance advantages for reasonable module combinations 3) Influence upon the overall shape of the MPI-3 standard There are certainly quite a few concerns here: 1) We may end up complicating the standard and its implementation even further 2) We may facilitate a split of the standard into several mutually incompatible implementation "families" 3) We may cause some valid MPI-3 applications break if they use optional modules not available in the implementation involved 4) We may get carried away by academic considerations and miss the actual customer demands in the process 5) We may be engaging into a lost battle because the MPI standard is way too rigid by design/purpose to be simplified To guard against all this, we need to work closely with other WGs and the Forum as a whole, define our goals as early as possible, and solicit extensive Forum and customer feedback. >From all this, by the time of the Forum meeting in March, we should have at least a couple of slides reflecting our intentions and plans. Best regards. Alexander -- Dr Alexander Supalov Intel GmbH Hermuelheimer Strasse 8a 50321 Bruehl, Germany Phone: +49 2232 209034 Mobile: +49 173 511 8735 Fax: +49 2232 209029 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. *

1 0

agenda for subsetting kickoff telecon ww09
by unknown＠example.com 26 Feb '08

26 Feb '08

Hi everybody, Let's meet on February 28, 2008, at 9:00 PST/12:00 pm EST/18:00 CET. +1-916-356-2663, Bridge: 4, Passcode: 5661281 - Opens & introductions - Scope of the effort - Next steps If you cannot make the time, please send your notes to this list prior to the meeting. Best regards. Alexander --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. *

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-subsetting] subsetting kickoff telecon ww09
by unknown＠example.com 23 Feb '08

23 Feb '08

I can meet either Th or Fr. Wednesday would be OK, but not at that time. I will be in the air. Steve... On Feb 23, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > Hi everybody, > > Thanks a lot for your replies. I've got 6 so far. > > Wednesday, February 27, PST 9:00 am PST/12:00 pm EST/18:00 CET > emerges as the time when all but one of us can meet. Thursday, > February 28, same time is a firm plan B for all but 2 of us. Monday > and Friday look increasingly weak. > > Due to this, I'll wait for more replies till Tuesday morning CET > and then announce the final time, connection details, and agenda of > the kickoff telecon. > > Best regards. > > Alexander > > From: mpi3-subsetting-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3- > subsetting-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Supalov, > Alexander > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 2:49 PM > To: mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden] > Subject: [Mpi3-subsetting] subsetting kickoff telecon ww09 > > Hi everybody, > > I suggest that we should have a 1-hour kickoff telecon to get going > on the MPI-3 subsetting. Please reply to me directly > (alexander.supalov_at_[hidden]) with an indication of the suitable > time out of the list below: > > February 25, 2007 7:00 am PST/10:00 am EST/16:00 CET yes/no/ > plan B > February 25, 2007 8:00 am PST/11:00 am EST/17:00 CET yes/no/ > plan B > February 25, 2007 9:00 am PST/12:00 pm EST/18:00 CET yes/no/ > plan B > February 27, 2007 9:00 am PST/12:00 pm EST/18:00 CET yes/no/ > plan B > February 28, 2007 9:00 am PST/12:00 pm EST/18:00 CET yes/no/ > plan B > February 29, 2007 7:00 am PST/10:00 am EST/16:00 CET yes/no/ > plan B > > I'll take care of the bridge and agenda once the time is settled. > > Best regards. > > Alexander > > -- > Dr Alexander Supalov > Intel GmbH > Hermuelheimer Strasse 8a > 50321 Bruehl, Germany > Phone: +49 2232 209034 > Mobile: +49 173 511 8735 > Fax: +49 2232 209029 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel GmbH > Dornacher Strasse 1 > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel GmbH > Dornacher Strasse 1 > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-subsetting mailing list > Mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-subsetting ==================================================> Steve Poole Computer Science and Mathematics Division Chief Scientist / Director of Special Programs Computational Sciences and Engineering Division National Center for Computational Sciences Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory 865.574.9008 (0ffice) 865.574.6076 (Fax) "Wisdom is not a product of schooling, but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it" Albert Einstein ====================================================> *

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-subsetting] subsetting kickoff telecon ww09
by unknown＠example.com 23 Feb '08

23 Feb '08

Hi everybody, Thanks a lot for your replies. I've got 6 so far. Wednesday, February 27, PST 9:00 am PST/12:00 pm EST/18:00 CET emerges as the time when all but one of us can meet. Thursday, February 28, same time is a firm plan B for all but 2 of us. Monday and Friday look increasingly weak. Due to this, I'll wait for more replies till Tuesday morning CET and then announce the final time, connection details, and agenda of the kickoff telecon. Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi3-subsetting-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-subsetting-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Supalov, Alexander Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 2:49 PM To: mpi3-subsetting_at_[hidden] Subject: [Mpi3-subsetting] subsetting kickoff telecon ww09 Hi everybody, I suggest that we should have a 1-hour kickoff telecon to get going on the MPI-3 subsetting. Please reply to me directly (alexander.supalov_at_[hidden]) with an indication of the suitable time out of the list below: February 25, 2007 7:00 am PST/10:00 am EST/16:00 CET yes/no/plan B February 25, 2007 8:00 am PST/11:00 am EST/17:00 CET yes/no/plan B February 25, 2007 9:00 am PST/12:00 pm EST/18:00 CET yes/no/plan B February 27, 2007 9:00 am PST/12:00 pm EST/18:00 CET yes/no/plan B February 28, 2007 9:00 am PST/12:00 pm EST/18:00 CET yes/no/plan B February 29, 2007 7:00 am PST/10:00 am EST/16:00 CET yes/no/plan B I'll take care of the bridge and agenda once the time is settled. Best regards. Alexander -- Dr Alexander Supalov Intel GmbH Hermuelheimer Strasse 8a 50321 Bruehl, Germany Phone: +49 2232 209034 Mobile: +49 173 511 8735 Fax: +49 2232 209029 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. *

1 0