The notes from the meeting are now posted: https://github.com/mpiwg-ft/ft-issues/wiki/2017-10-18 Thanks, Wesley === ### Attendees * Intel - Wesley, Jim * UTK - Aurelien * ORNL - Geoffroy * Argonne - Yanfei, Ken * Sandia - Keita * LLNL - Murali, Ignacio ## RMA Fault Tolerance (Data Resilience) [Link to pull request](https://github.com/mpiwg-ft/mpi-standard/pull/4) Continued discussion of whether this work is useful. * Aurelien - The description of the failure model is unclear. We need to better differentiate between `MPI_ERR_PROC_FAILED` and `MPI_ERR_DATA_UNAVAILABLE`. * Jim - Should `MPI_ERR_DATA_UNAVAILABLE` be usable outside of RMA? Does it apply to point-to-point or collectives? * Jim/Aurelien - Is the justification for this work that flush doesn't allow detection of process failure? They're still not convinced that this is true. * As long as flush can complete successfully, do we really need to tell you if a process failed on the other end? * Jim - On the other hand, it might be true that we can't guarantee any process failure detection in _any_ RMA operation. Maybe we should just not allow process failure errors (as opposed to "upgrading" other types of errors to process failure). * Jim - One place this still makes sense as is is having a process with data corrupted because another process failed during a put. If a third process is reading the bad memory, it _could_ get `MPI_ERR_DATA_UNAVAILABLE` instead of `MPI_ERR_PROC_FAILED`. ### Bottom Line * We're still unclear on the failure model expected here. We probably need to get more feedback from Jeff. * We also aren't convinced that process failure semantics aren't sufficient to tell the user all of the actionable information that they need. ## For next week: * Get feedback from Jeff when he comes back from paternity leave. ## In the future: * Start discussing text for FA-MPI and Reinit.