November 2013 - mpiwg-ft - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [mpiwg-ft] A meeting this week
by Jim Dinan 22 Nov '13

22 Nov '13

The latter case requires a failure detector, right? I had thought the current design would avoid this requirement. ~Jim. On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Wesley Bland <wbland(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > No problem about missing the call yesterday. It was a last minute thing. I > think we're in good shape to submit the text on Monday, but we're just > doing some final passes over the text. There were a few changes that > Aurélien will be making and I'm getting Gail to do an English pass, but > overall, it's still essentially the same as what we read last year (per the > request from the forum). > > There are a couple of ways out of this deadlock. The first is, as you > mentioned, to have a function in the library to essentially manually > trigger an error handler and let the library figure out what is wrong. This > method would work, but it is a bit heavy handed. The alternative solution > is that the wildcard on process X should return an error because the > failure of process Y meets the definition if an "involved process." Process > X will get an exception (or an MPI_Errhandler) and can trigger the recovery > path. > > Either way should work, but the later is obviously the preferred and > expected solution. > > Thanks, > Wesley > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > Sorry I wasn't able to attend. I'm back from SC now, if you need me. > > I have a concern about the current approach to revoking communicators. > Consider a program that uses a library with a communicator, CL, that is > private to the library. Process X makes a call to this library and > performs a wildcard receive on CL. Process Y fails; Y would have sent a > message to X on CL. Process Z sees that Y failed, but it sees it in the > user code, outside of the library. Process Z cannot call revoke on CL > because it does not have any knowledge about how the library is implemented > and it does not have a handle to CL. > > This seems like a situation that will result in deadlock, unless the > library is also extended to include a "respond to process failure" > function. Is this handled in some other way, and I'm just not seeing it? > > It seems like the revoke(comm) approach requires the programmer to know > about all communication and all communicators/windows in use in their > entire application, including those contained within libraries. Is that a > correct assessment? > > ~Jim. > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu > > wrote: > >> Rich, this is a followup of the proofreading work done during the regular >> meeting we had last week, and everybody, including SC attendees, had a >> chance to join. I am sorry you couldn’t. >> >> Anyway, here is the working document for today: all diffs since the >> introduction of the new RMA chapter 5 month ago. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 19 nov. 2013 à 17:07, Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com> a écrit : >> >> > With SC this week this is poor timing >> > >> > Rich >> > >> > ------Original Message------ >> > From: Wesley Bland >> > To: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group >> > Cc: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group >> > ReplyTo: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working >> Group >> > Subject: Re: [mpiwg-ft] A meeting this week >> > Sent: Nov 19, 2013 2:13 PM >> > >> > Ok. I'll be there. I'll send it off for an editing today. >> > >> > Wesley >> > >> >> On Nov 19, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear WG members, >> >> >> >> We have been misreading the new forum rules. We have to buckle the >> text of the proposal this week and not in 2 weeks from now, so time is >> running short. I would like to invite you to a supplementary meeting >> tomorrow to make a review of the text together. >> >> >> >> Jim, I don’t know if you will be able to attend on short notice, but >> your input would be greatly appreciated. >> >> >> >> Date: Wed, November 20, >> >> Time: 3pm EDT/New York >> >> Dial-in information: 712-432-0360 >> >> Code: 623998# >> >> >> >> Agenda: >> >> Review of ULFM text and final work. >> >> >> >> Aurelien >> >> >> >> -- >> >> * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller >> >> * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory >> >> * University of Tennessee >> >> * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b >> >> * Knoxville, TN 37996 >> >> * 865 974 9375 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> mpiwg-ft mailing list >> >> mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft >> > _______________________________________________ >> > mpiwg-ft mailing list >> > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft >> > _______________________________________________ >> > mpiwg-ft mailing list >> > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft >> >> -- >> * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller >> * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory >> * University of Tennessee >> * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b >> * Knoxville, TN 37996 >> * 865 974 9375 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-ft mailing list >> mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft >> > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-ft mailing list > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft > > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-ft mailing list > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft >

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-ft] A meeting this week
by Wesley Bland 21 Nov '13

21 Nov '13

No problem about missing the call yesterday. It was a last minute thing. I think we're in good shape to submit the text on Monday, but we're just doing some final passes over the text. There were a few changes that Aurélien will be making and I'm getting Gail to do an English pass, but overall, it's still essentially the same as what we read last year (per the request from the forum). There are a couple of ways out of this deadlock. The first is, as you mentioned, to have a function in the library to essentially manually trigger an error handler and let the library figure out what is wrong. This method would work, but it is a bit heavy handed. The alternative solution is that the wildcard on process X should return an error because the failure of process Y meets the definition if an "involved process." Process X will get an exception (or an MPI_Errhandler) and can trigger the recovery path. Either way should work, but the later is obviously the preferred and expected solution. Thanks, Wesley > On Nov 21, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > Sorry I wasn't able to attend. I'm back from SC now, if you need me. > > I have a concern about the current approach to revoking communicators. Consider a program that uses a library with a communicator, CL, that is private to the library. Process X makes a call to this library and performs a wildcard receive on CL. Process Y fails; Y would have sent a message to X on CL. Process Z sees that Y failed, but it sees it in the user code, outside of the library. Process Z cannot call revoke on CL because it does not have any knowledge about how the library is implemented and it does not have a handle to CL. > > This seems like a situation that will result in deadlock, unless the library is also extended to include a "respond to process failure" function. Is this handled in some other way, and I'm just not seeing it? > > It seems like the revoke(comm) approach requires the programmer to know about all communication and all communicators/windows in use in their entire application, including those contained within libraries. Is that a correct assessment? > > ~Jim. > > >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> wrote: >> Rich, this is a followup of the proofreading work done during the regular meeting we had last week, and everybody, including SC attendees, had a chance to join. I am sorry you couldn’t. >> >> Anyway, here is the working document for today: all diffs since the introduction of the new RMA chapter 5 month ago. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 19 nov. 2013 à 17:07, Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com> a écrit : >> >> > With SC this week this is poor timing >> > >> > Rich >> > >> > ------Original Message------ >> > From: Wesley Bland >> > To: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group >> > Cc: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group >> > ReplyTo: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group >> > Subject: Re: [mpiwg-ft] A meeting this week >> > Sent: Nov 19, 2013 2:13 PM >> > >> > Ok. I'll be there. I'll send it off for an editing today. >> > >> > Wesley >> > >> >> On Nov 19, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear WG members, >> >> >> >> We have been misreading the new forum rules. We have to buckle the text of the proposal this week and not in 2 weeks from now, so time is running short. I would like to invite you to a supplementary meeting tomorrow to make a review of the text together. >> >> >> >> Jim, I don’t know if you will be able to attend on short notice, but your input would be greatly appreciated. >> >> >> >> Date: Wed, November 20, >> >> Time: 3pm EDT/New York >> >> Dial-in information: 712-432-0360 >> >> Code: 623998# >> >> >> >> Agenda: >> >> Review of ULFM text and final work. >> >> >> >> Aurelien >> >> >> >> -- >> >> * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller >> >> * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory >> >> * University of Tennessee >> >> * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b >> >> * Knoxville, TN 37996 >> >> * 865 974 9375 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> mpiwg-ft mailing list >> >> mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft >> > _______________________________________________ >> > mpiwg-ft mailing list >> > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft >> > _______________________________________________ >> > mpiwg-ft mailing list >> > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft >> >> -- >> * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller >> * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory >> * University of Tennessee >> * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b >> * Knoxville, TN 37996 >> * 865 974 9375 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-ft mailing list >> mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-ft mailing list > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-ft] A meeting this week
by Jim Dinan 21 Nov '13

21 Nov '13

Hi Guys, Sorry I wasn't able to attend. I'm back from SC now, if you need me. I have a concern about the current approach to revoking communicators. Consider a program that uses a library with a communicator, CL, that is private to the library. Process X makes a call to this library and performs a wildcard receive on CL. Process Y fails; Y would have sent a message to X on CL. Process Z sees that Y failed, but it sees it in the user code, outside of the library. Process Z cannot call revoke on CL because it does not have any knowledge about how the library is implemented and it does not have a handle to CL. This seems like a situation that will result in deadlock, unless the library is also extended to include a "respond to process failure" function. Is this handled in some other way, and I'm just not seeing it? It seems like the revoke(comm) approach requires the programmer to know about all communication and all communicators/windows in use in their entire application, including those contained within libraries. Is that a correct assessment? ~Jim. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu>wrote: > Rich, this is a followup of the proofreading work done during the regular > meeting we had last week, and everybody, including SC attendees, had a > chance to join. I am sorry you couldn’t. > > Anyway, here is the working document for today: all diffs since the > introduction of the new RMA chapter 5 month ago. > > > > > > > > > Le 19 nov. 2013 à 17:07, Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com> a écrit : > > > With SC this week this is poor timing > > > > Rich > > > > ------Original Message------ > > From: Wesley Bland > > To: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group > > Cc: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group > > ReplyTo: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group > > Subject: Re: [mpiwg-ft] A meeting this week > > Sent: Nov 19, 2013 2:13 PM > > > > Ok. I'll be there. I'll send it off for an editing today. > > > > Wesley > > > >> On Nov 19, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> > wrote: > >> > >> Dear WG members, > >> > >> We have been misreading the new forum rules. We have to buckle the text > of the proposal this week and not in 2 weeks from now, so time is running > short. I would like to invite you to a supplementary meeting tomorrow to > make a review of the text together. > >> > >> Jim, I don’t know if you will be able to attend on short notice, but > your input would be greatly appreciated. > >> > >> Date: Wed, November 20, > >> Time: 3pm EDT/New York > >> Dial-in information: 712-432-0360 > >> Code: 623998# > >> > >> Agenda: > >> Review of ULFM text and final work. > >> > >> Aurelien > >> > >> -- > >> * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller > >> * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory > >> * University of Tennessee > >> * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b > >> * Knoxville, TN 37996 > >> * 865 974 9375 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> mpiwg-ft mailing list > >> mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft > > _______________________________________________ > > mpiwg-ft mailing list > > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft > > _______________________________________________ > > mpiwg-ft mailing list > > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft > > -- > * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller > * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory > * University of Tennessee > * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b > * Knoxville, TN 37996 > * 865 974 9375 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-ft mailing list > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft >

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-ft] A meeting this week
by Aurélien Bouteiller 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

Rich, this is a followup of the proofreading work done during the regular meeting we had last week, and everybody, including SC attendees, had a chance to join. I am sorry you couldn’t. Anyway, here is the working document for today: all diffs since the introduction of the new RMA chapter 5 month ago. Le 19 nov. 2013 à 17:07, Richard Graham <richardg(a)mellanox.com> a écrit : > With SC this week this is poor timing > > Rich > > ------Original Message------ > From: Wesley Bland > To: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group > Cc: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group > ReplyTo: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group > Subject: Re: [mpiwg-ft] A meeting this week > Sent: Nov 19, 2013 2:13 PM > > Ok. I'll be there. I'll send it off for an editing today. > > Wesley > >> On Nov 19, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> wrote: >> >> Dear WG members, >> >> We have been misreading the new forum rules. We have to buckle the text of the proposal this week and not in 2 weeks from now, so time is running short. I would like to invite you to a supplementary meeting tomorrow to make a review of the text together. >> >> Jim, I don’t know if you will be able to attend on short notice, but your input would be greatly appreciated. >> >> Date: Wed, November 20, >> Time: 3pm EDT/New York >> Dial-in information: 712-432-0360 >> Code: 623998# >> >> Agenda: >> Review of ULFM text and final work. >> >> Aurelien >> >> -- >> * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller >> * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory >> * University of Tennessee >> * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b >> * Knoxville, TN 37996 >> * 865 974 9375 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-ft mailing list >> mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-ft mailing list > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-ft mailing list > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft -- * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory * University of Tennessee * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b * Knoxville, TN 37996 * 865 974 9375

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-ft] A meeting this week
by Richard Graham 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

With SC this week this is poor timing Rich ------Original Message------ From: Wesley Bland To: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group Cc: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group ReplyTo: MPI WG Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group Subject: Re: [mpiwg-ft] A meeting this week Sent: Nov 19, 2013 2:13 PM Ok. I'll be there. I'll send it off for an editing today. Wesley > On Nov 19, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> wrote: > > Dear WG members, > > We have been misreading the new forum rules. We have to buckle the text of the proposal this week and not in 2 weeks from now, so time is running short. I would like to invite you to a supplementary meeting tomorrow to make a review of the text together. > > Jim, I don’t know if you will be able to attend on short notice, but your input would be greatly appreciated. > > Date: Wed, November 20, > Time: 3pm EDT/New York > Dial-in information: 712-432-0360 > Code: 623998# > > Agenda: > Review of ULFM text and final work. > > Aurelien > > -- > * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller > * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory > * University of Tennessee > * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b > * Knoxville, TN 37996 > * 865 974 9375 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-ft mailing list > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft _______________________________________________ mpiwg-ft mailing list mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-ft] A meeting this week
by Wesley Bland 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

Ok. I'll be there. I'll send it off for an editing today. Wesley > On Nov 19, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> wrote: > > Dear WG members, > > We have been misreading the new forum rules. We have to buckle the text of the proposal this week and not in 2 weeks from now, so time is running short. I would like to invite you to a supplementary meeting tomorrow to make a review of the text together. > > Jim, I don’t know if you will be able to attend on short notice, but your input would be greatly appreciated. > > Date: Wed, November 20, > Time: 3pm EDT/New York > Dial-in information: 712-432-0360 > Code: 623998# > > Agenda: > Review of ULFM text and final work. > > Aurelien > > -- > * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller > * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory > * University of Tennessee > * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b > * Knoxville, TN 37996 > * 865 974 9375 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-ft mailing list > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft

1 0

A meeting this week
by Aurélien Bouteiller 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

Dear WG members, We have been misreading the new forum rules. We have to buckle the text of the proposal this week and not in 2 weeks from now, so time is running short. I would like to invite you to a supplementary meeting tomorrow to make a review of the text together. Jim, I don’t know if you will be able to attend on short notice, but your input would be greatly appreciated. Date: Wed, November 20, Time: 3pm EDT/New York Dial-in information: 712-432-0360 Code: 623998# Agenda: Review of ULFM text and final work. Aurelien -- * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory * University of Tennessee * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b * Knoxville, TN 37996 * 865 974 9375

1 0

2013-11-12 Meeting Notes
by Wesley Bland 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

The meeting notes from yesterday’s con call have been posted to the wiki now: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/2013-11-12 Thanks, Wesley

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-ft] FTWG Con Call 2013-11-12
by Aurélien Bouteiller 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Here is a supporting document for today’s meeting. Aurelien Le 12 nov. 2013 à 09:04, Aurélien Bouteiller <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> a écrit : > Dear WG members, > > we will have our regular call at the regular time today. > > Date: november 12 > time: 3pm edt > phone: 712 432 0360 > code: 623998# > > Agenda: > Presentation of the non-semantic text changes applied to the document so far. Proposition for some other minor text changes. > > Aurelien > > Le 28 oct. 2013 à 09:55, Wesley Bland <wbland(a)mcs.anl.gov> a écrit : > >> Dear WG members, >> >> This is a reminder that we are having our regular phone meeting tomorrow at 3pm EDT. >> >> Date: October 29, >> Time: 3pm EDT/New York >> Dial-in information: 712-432-0360 >> Code: 623998# >> >> Agenda: >> * Current status of ticket 323 (ULFM) >> * Need to start working on slides for December >> * Plans for INIT ticket >> * Plans for ticket describing error classes >> * Looking for help on this one >> >> Next Meetings: >> * November 12, 2013 >> * November 26, 2013 >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-ft mailing list >> mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft > > -- > * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller > * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory > * University of Tennessee > * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b > * Knoxville, TN 37996 > * 865 974 9375 > > > > > > > -- * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory * University of Tennessee * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b * Knoxville, TN 37996 * 865 974 9375

1 0

FTWG Con Call 2013-11-12
by Aurélien Bouteiller 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Dear WG members, we will have our regular call at the regular time today. Date: november 12 time: 3pm edt phone: 712 432 0360 code: 623998# Agenda: Presentation of the non-semantic text changes applied to the document so far. Proposition for some other minor text changes. Aurelien Le 28 oct. 2013 à 09:55, Wesley Bland <wbland(a)mcs.anl.gov> a écrit : > Dear WG members, > > This is a reminder that we are having our regular phone meeting tomorrow at 3pm EDT. > > Date: October 29, > Time: 3pm EDT/New York > Dial-in information: 712-432-0360 > Code: 623998# > > Agenda: > * Current status of ticket 323 (ULFM) > * Need to start working on slides for December > * Plans for INIT ticket > * Plans for ticket describing error classes > * Looking for help on this one > > Next Meetings: > * November 12, 2013 > * November 26, 2013 > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-ft mailing list > mpiwg-ft(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft -- * Dr. Aurélien Bouteiller * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory * University of Tennessee * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b * Knoxville, TN 37996 * 865 974 9375

1 0