Hi Martin, The slides that were presented in Madrid were actually a new deck. We had tried to address feedback that there is a need to do a better job of covering the core issues, potential approaches, and justifications for design decisions, beyond just presenting the proposal. It sounds like more discussion around these topics is needed, and we can work with that for the Chicago meeting. It sounds like we're being asked to break the proposal up into two sets of changes -- one that defines failures in MPI and MPI's state after a failure; and second that adds a recovery API. Is that right? I'm not sure if it's possible to tease these things apart, but we can look into it. Cheers, ~Jim. On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Martin Schulz <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi all,

This is more from the viewpoint of an external observer, since I haven't

had the time to really participate lately.

Rich gave a presentation covering the current proposal, but he also said

that this was basically the old slide deck that had been shown before and didn't contain any of the new work that the FT group has been doing in coordinating with the other WGs. There were also several questions that people asked and that we couldn't answer since Rich was the only FT group member at the meeting.

Based on this I got the feeling that many in the forum were still

concerned about this overarching proposal and would like to hear more. In particular, a few meetings back after the MPI 3.0 vote we had a discussion about what was missing to make such concerns go away and one thing that we agreed on was to first go through the standard and clean things up to make it compatible with an FT proposal. From what I can tell, a lot of this has happened and it may help to explicitly present that before even going into the API approach. This (plus an updated talk with a broader discussion with more FT group members being present) may be better for the Chicago meeting than doing an actual formal reading (which may be too early since there doesn't seem to be consensus about the approach, yet).

From the application side, I have seen a few people starting to use it.

One of our PDs is using it for a large MD application and there is also the following work I saw at a recent conference:

ftp://ftp.inf.ethz.ch/pub/publications/tech-reports/7xx/793.pdf

Both said that the interface is overly complex and has a very (too?) high

of an impact on applications, which makes me worried. Not sure how we can address this, though.

Martin

On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller <[email protected]>

wrote:

I am currently in Europe and busy. My schedule will get back to normal in

october.

I'm also interested in a summary of events though.

Aurelien

Le 20 sept. 2013 à 00:42, Wesley Bland <[email protected]> a écrit :

Hi WG,

I've been out if the loop for a bit since my wife had our first baby last

week (everyone is doing great). I was wondering how things went at the forum meeting last week. Was there any feedback from those in attendance?

Also, I didn't see an email about this week's con call. I assume that it

didn't happen, but if it did can anyone mention what was discussed?

Thanks, Wesley _______________________________________________ mpiwg-ft mailing list [email protected] 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 [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft

________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, [email protected], http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

_______________________________________________ mpiwg-ft mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft