Josh, I'm rusty on the semantics here. Isn't it possible for the workers to choose MPI_ERRORS_FATAL and for the master to choose MPI_ERRORS_RETURN? Greg Bronevetsky Lawrence Livermore National Lab (925) 424-5756 [email protected] http://greg.bronevetsky.com From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Toon Knapen Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 11:42 AM To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] run through stabilization user-guide On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Bronevetsky, Greg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: If the workers use communicators that are MPI_ERRORS_FATAL, if there is a disconnect with the master, they will be automatically aborted. Meanwhile, the master will be informed about their "failure" because of the disconnect and when connection to the physical nodes that previously hosted the aborted workers is re-established, the master's MPI library will see that worker tasks are dead and will not need to kill the master.

From the user guide I did not understand that there is this kind of 'interoperability' between the different error handlers. For instance the user guide says 'The application must opt-in to the fault tolerance semantics by replacing the default error handler'.

toon