May 2012 - mpiwg-ft - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status?
by Ralph Castain 30 May '12

30 May '12

Obviously, I can't speak for the folks who attended and voted "no", either directly or by abstaining. However, I have talked to at least a few people, and can offer a point or two about the concerns. First, the last study I saw published on the subject of FT for MPI showed a very low level of interest in FT within the MPI community. It based this on a usage analysis that showed something over 90% of clusters being too small to see large failure rates. On the clusters that were large enough (primarily at the national labs, who pretty clearly voted no), over 80% of the MPI jobs lasted less than 1 hour. So the size of the community that potentially benefits from FT is very small. In contrast, despite assurances it would be turned off unless specifically requested, it was clear from the proposals that FT would impact a significant fraction of the code, thus raising the potential for a substantial round of debugging and instability. For that majority who would see little-to-no benefit, this isn't an attractive trade-off. Second, those who possibly could benefit tend to take a more holistic view of FT. If you step back and look at the cluster as a system, then there are multiple ways of addressing the problems of failure during long runs. Yes, one way is to harden MPI to such events, but that is probably the hardest solution. One easier way, and the one being largely touted at the moment, is to make checkpointing of an application be a relatively low-cost event so that it can be frequently done. This is being commercialized as we speak by the addition of SSDs to the usual parallel file system, thus making a checkpoint run at very fast speeds. In fact, "burst" buffers are allowing the checkpoint to dump very quickly, and then slowly drain to disk, rendering the checkpoint operation very low cost. Given that the commercial interests coincide with the HPC interests, this solution is likely to be available from cluster suppliers very soon at an attractive price. Combined with measures to make restart very fast as well, this looks like an alternative that has no performance impact on the application at the MPI level, doesn't potentially destabilize the software, and may meet the majority of needs. I'm not touting this approach over any other, mind you - just trying to point out that the research interests of the FT/MPI group needs to be considered in a separate light from the production interests of the community. What you may be experiencing (from my limited survey) is a reflection of that divergence. Ralph On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:55 PM, George Bosilca <bosilca(a)eecs.utk.edu>wrote: > On May 31, 2012, at 08:44 , Martin Schulz wrote: > > Several people who abstained had very similar concerns, but chose the > abstain vote since they know it meant no, > > > Your interpretation is barely making a "simple majority" in the forum, as > highlighted by parallel discussions in the other email threads. But let's > leave this discussion in its own thread. > > But you're right, both "no" and "abstain" votes should be addressed. Bill > made his point very clear, and to be honest he was the only one that raised > a __valid__ point about the FT proposal. Personally, I am looking forward > to fruitful discussions during our weekly phone-calls where the complaints > raised during the voting will be brought forward in the way that the > working group will have a real opportunity to address them as they deserve. > In other terms we are all counting on you guys to enlighten us on the major > issues with this proposal and the potential solutions you envision or > promote. > > george. > > On May 31, 2012, at 08:44 , Martin Schulz wrote: > > Hi George, > > One other no was Intel as far as I remember, but I don't remember the 5th. > However, I would suggest not to focus on the no votes alone. Several people > who abstained had very similar concerns, but chose the abstain vote since > they know it meant no, but they agreed with the general necessity of FT for > MPI. I remember, for example, Bill saying that for him abstain meant no, > but that changes later on could change his mind. Based on this > interpretation, the ticket definitely had more than 5 no votes. > > Martin > > > On May 31, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Darius Buntinas wrote: > > > Argonne was not convinced that we (FTWG) had the right solution, and the > large changes in the text mentioned previously did not instill confidence. > So it was decided that Argonne would vote against the ticket. > > -d > > On May 30, 2012, at 6:24 PM, George Bosilca wrote: > > In total there were 5 no votes. I wonder who were the other two, they > might be willing to enlighten us on their reasons to vote against. > > > george. > > > On May 31, 2012, at 05:48 , Anthony Skjellum wrote: > > > Three no votes were LLNL, Argonne, and Sandia. Since MPI is heavily > driven by DOE, convincing these folks would be important. > > > Tony Skjellum, tonyskj(a)yahoo.com or skjellum(a)gmail.com > > Cell 205-807-4968 > > > On May 31, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com> wrote: > > > The main objection raised is that the text has still been having large > changes, and if not for the pressure of the 3.0 deadline, this would not > have come up for a vote. I talked one-on-one with many that either voted > against or abstained, and this was the major (not only) point raised. > > > Rich > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mpi3-ft-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto: > mpi3-ft-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Aurélien Bouteiller > > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:05 PM > > To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group > > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status? > > > It seems we had very little, if any, technical opposition on the content > of the proposal itself, but mostly comments on the process. I think we need > to understand more what are the oppositions. Do we have a list of who voted > for and against and their rationale? > > > Aurelien > > > > Le 30 mai 2012 à 08:52, Josh Hursey a écrit : > > > That is unfortunate. A close vote (7 yes to 9 no/abstain). :/ > > > Thanks, > > Josh > > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Thomas Herault > > <herault.thomas(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Le 30 mai 2012 a 01:44, George Bosilca a écrit: > > > The ticket has been voted down. Come back in 6 months, maybe 3.1. The > votes were 7 yes, 4 abstains and 5 no. > > > Thomas > > > Le 30 mai 2012 à 07:02, Josh Hursey a écrit : > > > How did the vote go for the fault tolerance ticket 323? > > > -- Josh > > > -- > > Joshua Hursey > > Postdoctoral Research Associate > > Oak Ridge National Laboratory > > http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi3-ft mailing list > > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi3-ft mailing list > > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > > > > -- > > Joshua Hursey > > Postdoctoral Research Associate > > Oak Ridge National Laboratory > > http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi3-ft mailing list > > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > > -- > > * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller > > * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory > > * University of Tennessee > > * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 350 > > * Knoxville, TN 37996 > > * 865 974 9375 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi3-ft mailing list > > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi3-ft mailing list > > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi3-ft mailing list > > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-ft mailing list > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-ft mailing list > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-ft mailing list > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status?
by George Bosilca 30 May '12

30 May '12

On May 31, 2012, at 08:44 , Martin Schulz wrote: > Several people who abstained had very similar concerns, but chose the abstain vote since they know it meant no, Your interpretation is barely making a "simple majority" in the forum, as highlighted by parallel discussions in the other email threads. But let's leave this discussion in its own thread. But you're right, both "no" and "abstain" votes should be addressed. Bill made his point very clear, and to be honest he was the only one that raised a __valid__ point about the FT proposal. Personally, I am looking forward to fruitful discussions during our weekly phone-calls where the complaints raised during the voting will be brought forward in the way that the working group will have a real opportunity to address them as they deserve. In other terms we are all counting on you guys to enlighten us on the major issues with this proposal and the potential solutions you envision or promote. george. On May 31, 2012, at 08:44 , Martin Schulz wrote: > Hi George, > > One other no was Intel as far as I remember, but I don't remember the 5th. However, I would suggest not to focus on the no votes alone. Several people who abstained had very similar concerns, but chose the abstain vote since they know it meant no, but they agreed with the general necessity of FT for MPI. I remember, for example, Bill saying that for him abstain meant no, but that changes later on could change his mind. Based on this interpretation, the ticket definitely had more than 5 no votes. > > Martin > > > On May 31, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Darius Buntinas wrote: > >> >> Argonne was not convinced that we (FTWG) had the right solution, and the large changes in the text mentioned previously did not instill confidence. So it was decided that Argonne would vote against the ticket. >> >> -d >> >> On May 30, 2012, at 6:24 PM, George Bosilca wrote: >> >>> In total there were 5 no votes. I wonder who were the other two, they might be willing to enlighten us on their reasons to vote against. >>> >>> george. >>> >>> On May 31, 2012, at 05:48 , Anthony Skjellum wrote: >>> >>>> Three no votes were LLNL, Argonne, and Sandia. Since MPI is heavily driven by DOE, convincing these folks would be important. >>>> >>>> Tony Skjellum, tonyskj(a)yahoo.com or skjellum(a)gmail.com >>>> Cell 205-807-4968 >>>> >>>> On May 31, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The main objection raised is that the text has still been having large changes, and if not for the pressure of the 3.0 deadline, this would not have come up for a vote. I talked one-on-one with many that either voted against or abstained, and this was the major (not only) point raised. >>>>> >>>>> Rich >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: mpi3-ft-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aurélien Bouteiller >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:05 PM >>>>> To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group >>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status? >>>>> >>>>> It seems we had very little, if any, technical opposition on the content of the proposal itself, but mostly comments on the process. I think we need to understand more what are the oppositions. Do we have a list of who voted for and against and their rationale? >>>>> >>>>> Aurelien >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 30 mai 2012 à 08:52, Josh Hursey a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> That is unfortunate. A close vote (7 yes to 9 no/abstain). :/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Josh >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Thomas Herault >>>>>> <herault.thomas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Le 30 mai 2012 a 01:44, George Bosilca a écrit: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The ticket has been voted down. Come back in 6 months, maybe 3.1. The votes were 7 yes, 4 abstains and 5 no. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thomas >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 30 mai 2012 à 07:02, Josh Hursey a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How did the vote go for the fault tolerance ticket 323? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Josh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Joshua Hursey >>>>>>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>>>>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>>>>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>>>>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>>>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Joshua Hursey >>>>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller >>>>> * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory >>>>> * University of Tennessee >>>>> * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 350 >>>>> * Knoxville, TN 37996 >>>>> * 865 974 9375 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi3-ft mailing list >> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-ft mailing list > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status?
by Sur, Sayantan 30 May '12

30 May '12

Since we went with the simplified FT proposal, there was some interest in seeing how upper-level FT libraries (that provide more useful semantics) would look like and how they would interact with applications. It was felt that some of these things might need more time to bake/mature before becoming a standard. In addition, the issues that Darius and Martin have mentioned also a factor. === Sayantan Sur, Ph.D. Intel Corp. From: mpi3-ft-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Schulz Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:45 PM To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status? Hi George, One other no was Intel as far as I remember, but I don't remember the 5th. However, I would suggest not to focus on the no votes alone. Several people who abstained had very similar concerns, but chose the abstain vote since they know it meant no, but they agreed with the general necessity of FT for MPI. I remember, for example, Bill saying that for him abstain meant no, but that changes later on could change his mind. Based on this interpretation, the ticket definitely had more than 5 no votes. Martin On May 31, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Darius Buntinas wrote: Argonne was not convinced that we (FTWG) had the right solution, and the large changes in the text mentioned previously did not instill confidence. So it was decided that Argonne would vote against the ticket. -d On May 30, 2012, at 6:24 PM, George Bosilca wrote: In total there were 5 no votes. I wonder who were the other two, they might be willing to enlighten us on their reasons to vote against. george. On May 31, 2012, at 05:48 , Anthony Skjellum wrote: Three no votes were LLNL, Argonne, and Sandia. Since MPI is heavily driven by DOE, convincing these folks would be important. Tony Skjellum, tonyskj(a)yahoo.com<mailto:[email protected]> or skjellum(a)gmail.com<mailto:[email protected]> Cell 205-807-4968 On May 31, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The main objection raised is that the text has still been having large changes, and if not for the pressure of the 3.0 deadline, this would not have come up for a vote. I talked one-on-one with many that either voted against or abstained, and this was the major (not only) point raised. Rich -----Original Message----- From: mpi3-ft-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> On Behalf Of Aurélien Bouteiller Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:05 PM To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status? It seems we had very little, if any, technical opposition on the content of the proposal itself, but mostly comments on the process. I think we need to understand more what are the oppositions. Do we have a list of who voted for and against and their rationale? Aurelien Le 30 mai 2012 à 08:52, Josh Hursey a écrit : That is unfortunate. A close vote (7 yes to 9 no/abstain). :/ Thanks, Josh On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Thomas Herault <herault.thomas(a)gmail.com<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Le 30 mai 2012 a 01:44, George Bosilca a écrit: The ticket has been voted down. Come back in 6 months, maybe 3.1. The votes were 7 yes, 4 abstains and 5 no. Thomas Le 30 mai 2012 à 07:02, Josh Hursey a écrit : How did the vote go for the fault tolerance ticket 323? -- Josh -- Joshua Hursey Postdoctoral Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey _______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft _______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft -- Joshua Hursey Postdoctoral Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey _______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft -- * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory * University of Tennessee * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 350 * Knoxville, TN 37996 * 865 974 9375 _______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft _______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft _______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft _______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status?
by Martin Schulz 30 May '12

30 May '12

Hi George, One other no was Intel as far as I remember, but I don't remember the 5th. However, I would suggest not to focus on the no votes alone. Several people who abstained had very similar concerns, but chose the abstain vote since they know it meant no, but they agreed with the general necessity of FT for MPI. I remember, for example, Bill saying that for him abstain meant no, but that changes later on could change his mind. Based on this interpretation, the ticket definitely had more than 5 no votes. Martin On May 31, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Darius Buntinas wrote: > > Argonne was not convinced that we (FTWG) had the right solution, and the large changes in the text mentioned previously did not instill confidence. So it was decided that Argonne would vote against the ticket. > > -d > > On May 30, 2012, at 6:24 PM, George Bosilca wrote: > >> In total there were 5 no votes. I wonder who were the other two, they might be willing to enlighten us on their reasons to vote against. >> >> george. >> >> On May 31, 2012, at 05:48 , Anthony Skjellum wrote: >> >>> Three no votes were LLNL, Argonne, and Sandia. Since MPI is heavily driven by DOE, convincing these folks would be important. >>> >>> Tony Skjellum, tonyskj(a)yahoo.com or skjellum(a)gmail.com >>> Cell 205-807-4968 >>> >>> On May 31, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The main objection raised is that the text has still been having large changes, and if not for the pressure of the 3.0 deadline, this would not have come up for a vote. I talked one-on-one with many that either voted against or abstained, and this was the major (not only) point raised. >>>> >>>> Rich >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: mpi3-ft-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aurélien Bouteiller >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:05 PM >>>> To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group >>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status? >>>> >>>> It seems we had very little, if any, technical opposition on the content of the proposal itself, but mostly comments on the process. I think we need to understand more what are the oppositions. Do we have a list of who voted for and against and their rationale? >>>> >>>> Aurelien >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 30 mai 2012 à 08:52, Josh Hursey a écrit : >>>> >>>>> That is unfortunate. A close vote (7 yes to 9 no/abstain). :/ >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Josh >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Thomas Herault >>>>> <herault.thomas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Le 30 mai 2012 a 01:44, George Bosilca a écrit: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The ticket has been voted down. Come back in 6 months, maybe 3.1. The votes were 7 yes, 4 abstains and 5 no. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thomas >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 30 mai 2012 à 07:02, Josh Hursey a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> How did the vote go for the fault tolerance ticket 323? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Josh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Joshua Hursey >>>>>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>>>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>>>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>>>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Joshua Hursey >>>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>>> >>>> -- >>>> * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller >>>> * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory >>>> * University of Tennessee >>>> * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 350 >>>> * Knoxville, TN 37996 >>>> * 865 974 9375 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi3-ft mailing list >> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-ft mailing list > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status?
by Darius Buntinas 30 May '12

30 May '12

Argonne was not convinced that we (FTWG) had the right solution, and the large changes in the text mentioned previously did not instill confidence. So it was decided that Argonne would vote against the ticket. -d On May 30, 2012, at 6:24 PM, George Bosilca wrote: > In total there were 5 no votes. I wonder who were the other two, they might be willing to enlighten us on their reasons to vote against. > > george. > > On May 31, 2012, at 05:48 , Anthony Skjellum wrote: > >> Three no votes were LLNL, Argonne, and Sandia. Since MPI is heavily driven by DOE, convincing these folks would be important. >> >> Tony Skjellum, tonyskj(a)yahoo.com or skjellum(a)gmail.com >> Cell 205-807-4968 >> >> On May 31, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com> wrote: >> >>> The main objection raised is that the text has still been having large changes, and if not for the pressure of the 3.0 deadline, this would not have come up for a vote. I talked one-on-one with many that either voted against or abstained, and this was the major (not only) point raised. >>> >>> Rich >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: mpi3-ft-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aurï¿½lien Bouteiller >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:05 PM >>> To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group >>> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status? >>> >>> It seems we had very little, if any, technical opposition on the content of the proposal itself, but mostly comments on the process. I think we need to understand more what are the oppositions. Do we have a list of who voted for and against and their rationale? >>> >>> Aurelien >>> >>> >>> Le 30 mai 2012 ï¿½ 08:52, Josh Hursey a ï¿½crit : >>> >>>> That is unfortunate. A close vote (7 yes to 9 no/abstain). :/ >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Josh >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Thomas Herault >>>> <herault.thomas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Le 30 mai 2012 a 01:44, George Bosilca a ï¿½crit: >>>>> >>>>>> The ticket has been voted down. Come back in 6 months, maybe 3.1. The votes were 7 yes, 4 abstains and 5 no. >>>>> >>>>> Thomas >>>>> >>>>> Le 30 mai 2012 ï¿½ 07:02, Josh Hursey a ï¿½crit : >>>>> >>>>>> How did the vote go for the fault tolerance ticket 323? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Josh >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Joshua Hursey >>>>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Joshua Hursey >>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>> >>> -- >>> * Dr. Aurï¿½lien Bouteiller >>> * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory >>> * University of Tennessee >>> * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 350 >>> * Knoxville, TN 37996 >>> * 865 974 9375 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi3-ft mailing list >> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-ft mailing list > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status?
by George Bosilca 30 May '12

30 May '12

In total there were 5 no votes. I wonder who were the other two, they might be willing to enlighten us on their reasons to vote against. george. On May 31, 2012, at 05:48 , Anthony Skjellum wrote: > Three no votes were LLNL, Argonne, and Sandia. Since MPI is heavily driven by DOE, convincing these folks would be important. > > Tony Skjellum, tonyskj(a)yahoo.com or skjellum(a)gmail.com > Cell 205-807-4968 > > On May 31, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com> wrote: > >> The main objection raised is that the text has still been having large changes, and if not for the pressure of the 3.0 deadline, this would not have come up for a vote. I talked one-on-one with many that either voted against or abstained, and this was the major (not only) point raised. >> >> Rich >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpi3-ft-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aurï¿½lien Bouteiller >> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:05 PM >> To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group >> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status? >> >> It seems we had very little, if any, technical opposition on the content of the proposal itself, but mostly comments on the process. I think we need to understand more what are the oppositions. Do we have a list of who voted for and against and their rationale? >> >> Aurelien >> >> >> Le 30 mai 2012 ï¿½ 08:52, Josh Hursey a ï¿½crit : >> >>> That is unfortunate. A close vote (7 yes to 9 no/abstain). :/ >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Josh >>> >>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Thomas Herault >>> <herault.thomas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Le 30 mai 2012 a 01:44, George Bosilca a ï¿½crit: >>>> >>>>> The ticket has been voted down. Come back in 6 months, maybe 3.1. The votes were 7 yes, 4 abstains and 5 no. >>>> >>>> Thomas >>>> >>>> Le 30 mai 2012 ï¿½ 07:02, Josh Hursey a ï¿½crit : >>>> >>>>> How did the vote go for the fault tolerance ticket 323? >>>>> >>>>> -- Josh >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Joshua Hursey >>>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joshua Hursey >>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >> >> -- >> * Dr. Aurï¿½lien Bouteiller >> * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory >> * University of Tennessee >> * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 350 >> * Knoxville, TN 37996 >> * 865 974 9375 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi3-ft mailing list >> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-ft mailing list > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status?
by Anthony Skjellum 30 May '12

30 May '12

Three no votes were LLNL, Argonne, and Sandia. Since MPI is heavily driven by DOE, convincing these folks would be important. Tony Skjellum, tonyskj(a)yahoo.com or skjellum(a)gmail.com Cell 205-807-4968 On May 31, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com> wrote: > The main objection raised is that the text has still been having large changes, and if not for the pressure of the 3.0 deadline, this would not have come up for a vote. I talked one-on-one with many that either voted against or abstained, and this was the major (not only) point raised. > > Rich > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi3-ft-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aurélien Bouteiller > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:05 PM > To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status? > > It seems we had very little, if any, technical opposition on the content of the proposal itself, but mostly comments on the process. I think we need to understand more what are the oppositions. Do we have a list of who voted for and against and their rationale? > > Aurelien > > > Le 30 mai 2012 à 08:52, Josh Hursey a écrit : > >> That is unfortunate. A close vote (7 yes to 9 no/abstain). :/ >> >> Thanks, >> Josh >> >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Thomas Herault >> <herault.thomas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Le 30 mai 2012 a 01:44, George Bosilca a écrit: >>> >>>> The ticket has been voted down. Come back in 6 months, maybe 3.1. The votes were 7 yes, 4 abstains and 5 no. >>> >>> Thomas >>> >>> Le 30 mai 2012 à 07:02, Josh Hursey a écrit : >>> >>>> How did the vote go for the fault tolerance ticket 323? >>>> >>>> -- Josh >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Joshua Hursey >>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >> >> >> >> -- >> Joshua Hursey >> Postdoctoral Research Associate >> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi3-ft mailing list >> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > -- > * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller > * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory > * University of Tennessee > * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 350 > * Knoxville, TN 37996 > * 865 974 9375 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-ft mailing list > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status?
by Richard Graham 30 May '12

30 May '12

The main objection raised is that the text has still been having large changes, and if not for the pressure of the 3.0 deadline, this would not have come up for a vote. I talked one-on-one with many that either voted against or abstained, and this was the major (not only) point raised. Rich -----Original Message----- From: mpi3-ft-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aurï¿½lien Bouteiller Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:05 PM To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status? It seems we had very little, if any, technical opposition on the content of the proposal itself, but mostly comments on the process. I think we need to understand more what are the oppositions. Do we have a list of who voted for and against and their rationale? Aurelien Le 30 mai 2012 ï¿½ 08:52, Josh Hursey a ï¿½crit : > That is unfortunate. A close vote (7 yes to 9 no/abstain). :/ > > Thanks, > Josh > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Thomas Herault > <herault.thomas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Le 30 mai 2012 a 01:44, George Bosilca a ï¿½crit: >> >>> The ticket has been voted down. Come back in 6 months, maybe 3.1. The votes were 7 yes, 4 abstains and 5 no. >> >> Thomas >> >> Le 30 mai 2012 ï¿½ 07:02, Josh Hursey a ï¿½crit : >> >>> How did the vote go for the fault tolerance ticket 323? >>> >>> -- Josh >>> >>> -- >>> Joshua Hursey >>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi3-ft mailing list >> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > > > -- > Joshua Hursey > Postdoctoral Research Associate > Oak Ridge National Laboratory > http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-ft mailing list > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft -- * Dr. Aurï¿½lien Bouteiller * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory * University of Tennessee * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 350 * Knoxville, TN 37996 * 865 974 9375

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status?
by Aurélien Bouteiller 30 May '12

30 May '12

It seems we had very little, if any, technical opposition on the content of the proposal itself, but mostly comments on the process. I think we need to understand more what are the oppositions. Do we have a list of who voted for and against and their rationale? Aurelien Le 30 mai 2012 à 08:52, Josh Hursey a écrit : > That is unfortunate. A close vote (7 yes to 9 no/abstain). :/ > > Thanks, > Josh > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Thomas Herault > <herault.thomas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Le 30 mai 2012 a 01:44, George Bosilca a écrit: >> >>> The ticket has been voted down. Come back in 6 months, maybe 3.1. The votes were 7 yes, 4 abstains and 5 no. >> >> Thomas >> >> Le 30 mai 2012 à 07:02, Josh Hursey a écrit : >> >>> How did the vote go for the fault tolerance ticket 323? >>> >>> -- Josh >>> >>> -- >>> Joshua Hursey >>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi3-ft mailing list >>> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi3-ft mailing list >> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > > > -- > Joshua Hursey > Postdoctoral Research Associate > Oak Ridge National Laboratory > http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-ft mailing list > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft -- * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory * University of Tennessee * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 350 * Knoxville, TN 37996 * 865 974 9375

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-ft] Ticket 323 - status?
by Josh Hursey 30 May '12

30 May '12

That is unfortunate. A close vote (7 yes to 9 no/abstain). :/ Thanks, Josh On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Thomas Herault <herault.thomas(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Le 30 mai 2012 a 01:44, George Bosilca a ï¿½crit: > >> The ticket has been voted down. Come back in 6 months, maybe 3.1. The votes were 7 yes, 4 abstains and 5 no. > > Thomas > > Le 30 mai 2012 ï¿½ 07:02, Josh Hursey a ï¿½crit : > >> How did the vote go for the fault tolerance ticket 323? >> >> -- Josh >> >> -- >> Joshua Hursey >> Postdoctoral Research Associate >> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi3-ft mailing list >> mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-ft mailing list > mpi3-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft -- Joshua Hursey Postdoctoral Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey

1 0