(I'm just listening in on all conversations concerning FT because I need this kind of functionality in my app but I'm not an expert, so I'll give you my opinion from an average-user-pov) I think it would be most clear and helpfull to have a seperate chapter on all issues concerning FT. Nevertheless references to this chapter should be integrated along the semantics throughout the whole standard. Thus a central approach but with pointers to the 'central info' distributed all over the standard. On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Joshua Hursey <[email protected]> wrote:

We start edging toward a final draft of the run-through stabilization proposal and embark on process recovery (TBA). As we do so, I wanted to start thinking about how we might integrate this language into the current MPI standard. A PDF version of the working proposal will make it easier for someone new to pick up and read exactly what we are going to add. This is in contrast to the mixture of notes and standard text that is currently on the wiki.

In particular, should we: A) Create an entirely new chapter on Fault Tolerance and Error Management. Pull in all existing section to a central location. B) Add a section to the Environmental Management chapter on Fault Tolerance. Pull in relevant existing sections on error handling into this section. C) Tightly integrate the semantics throughout the MPI standard (e.g., P2P semantics in the P2P chapter, Collective semantics in the Collectives chapter). D) Something else...

There are pros and cons to each. In essence the question is, should we move all the error management logic to a central location or keep it close to the actual functionality?

What do folks think about this?

-- Josh

------------------------------------ Joshua Hursey Postdoctoral Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey

_______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft