- mpiwg-io - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [MPI3-IO] Updated draft for ticket 273
by Quincey Koziol 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Hi Mohamad, One small comment about the change to lines 38-43 on p484: this sentence: "All processes, belonging to the group of the communicator that was used to open the file, must call collective I/O operations (blocking and nonblocking) in the same order." doesn't need any commas. Also, I would probably add the same advise to users for MPI_FILE_IWRITE_ORDERED as you added for MPI_FILE_IREAD_ORDERED. Otherwise, looks good to me, :-) Quincey On Feb 15, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote: > Hi All, > > I attached to the ticket (https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/273) the updated draft with the suggested ticket 0 changes from the reading at the last meeting. > > For your convenience, here are the changes made to the text including the page number: > p:444 We should make table 13.1 have three rows: blocking, nonblocking & split collective, along with marking the split collectives as deprecated in the table (if possible). (ticket 0) > p:451 (line 21), 456 (line 40), 463 (line 21) We need to change the 'void *' buffer parameters for the "write" routines to be 'const void *'. > p: 484 (line 46) "Quality" should be "High Quality". > p: 484 (line 38-43) The sentence ending with "in between" needs editing to indicate what the collective operations are "between". > I rephrased this sentence a little and added a reference to the collective semantics. > p: 484 (line 36) "belonging to the communicator" should be "belonging to the group of the communicator". > p: 484 (line 48) "All calls" should be changed to "All nonblocking collective I/O calls". > p: 445 (line 25) The sentence "In a nonblocking or split collective operation, the pointer is updated by the call that initiates the I/O, possibly before the access completes." should have a note about the split collectives being deprecated. > p"462 (line 28) Add advice to users to indicate the result of intermixing nonblocking collective and independent shared file pointer operations is undefined > Please let me know if you have any comments about the changes. > > Thanks, > Mohamad > > _______________________________________________ > MPI3-IO mailing list > MPI3-IO(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io

1 0

[MPI3-IO] Updated draft for ticket 273
by Mohamad Chaarawi 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Hi All, I attached to the ticket (https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/273) the updated draft with the suggested ticket 0 changes from the reading at the last meeting. For your convenience, here are the changes made to the text including the page number: * p:444 We should make table 13.1 have three rows: blocking, nonblocking& split collective, along with marking the split collectives as deprecated in the table (if possible). (ticket 0) * p:451 (line 21), 456 (line 40), 463 (line 21) We need to change the 'void *' buffer parameters for the "write" routines to be 'const void *'. * p: 484 (line 46) "Quality" should be "High Quality". * p: 484 (line 38-43) The sentence ending with "in between" needs editing to indicate what the collective operations are "between". o I rephrased this sentence a little and added a reference to the collective semantics. * p: 484 (line 36) "belonging to the communicator" should be "belonging to the group of the communicator". * p: 484 (line 48) "All calls" should be changed to "All nonblocking collective I/O calls". * p: 445 (line 25) The sentence "In a nonblocking or split collective operation, the pointer is updated by the call that initiates the I/O, possibly before the access completes." should have a note about the split collectives being deprecated. * p"462 (line 28) Add advice to users to indicate the result of intermixing nonblocking collective and independent shared file pointer operations is undefined Please let me know if you have any comments about the changes. Thanks, Mohamad

1 0

Re: [MPI3-IO] Fault Tolerance & I/O Discussion
by Josh Hursey 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

Just a reminder that we are going to meet at 11 am Eastern on Wednesday to continue our discussion. Thanks, Josh On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org> wrote: > We will meet Wednesday, Feb. 15 at 11 am Eastern to continue > our discussion of fault tolerance in the I/O chapter. > > We can use the following teleconf information: > US Toll Free number: 877-801-8130 > Toll number: 1-203-692-8690 > Access Code: 1044056 > > Thanks, > Josh > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org> wrote: > >> We had a good discussion today. Attached are some notes that I took from >> the call. >> >> There were a few questions that we were discussing at the end of the >> call. As a result we are going to try to setup another teleconf. >> >> Below is a doodle poll to pick a date/time: >> http://www.doodle.com/zw83eht6hh8mwmic >> >> If you are interested in attending this teleconf, please fill out the >> poll by 2 pm Eastern on Wednesday, Feb. 8. >> >> In the mean time let us keep discussing these issues on the FT and I/O >> mailing lists. My preference would be to just discuss it on the FT mailing >> list as there are more FT folks over there, and then we would not distract >> the discussions about the other I/O tickets. >> >> Thanks, >> Josh >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org>wrote: >> >>> Just a reminder that we are meeting today at Noon Eastern. Enclosed are >>> the call-in details and a link to the FT stabilization proposal. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Josh >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org>wrote: >>> >>>> We will meet Monday, Feb. 6 from 12-1 pm EST/New York to discuss I/O in >>>> the context of the fault tolerance proposal (or the Super Bowl if we get >>>> bored). >>>> >>>> We can use the following teleconf information: >>>> US Toll Free number: 877-801-8130 >>>> Toll number: 1-203-692-8690 >>>> Access Code: 1044056 >>>> >>>> The Run-Through Stabilization proposal can be found attached to the >>>> ticket: >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/276 >>>> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/ticket/276/FTWG-Pro… >>>> >>>> We will be primarily focusing on section 17.12 of that document. I will >>>> try to send out a reminder the day of. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Josh >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Try the new link (I had to close the other poll due to a timezone >>>>> problem): >>>>> http://www.doodle.com/yifhpi5emyyzrspa >>>>> >>>>> -- Josh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi < >>>>> chaarawi(a)hdfgroup.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Josh, >>>>>> >>>>>> When I click the link, it says the poll has been deleted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Mohamad >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 01/31/2012 11:52 AM, Josh Hursey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> (Cross posted to both the I/O and FT MPI-3 listservs) >>>>>> >>>>>> During the FT plenary session at the Jan. MPI Forum meeting there >>>>>> were some concerns about fault tolerance semantics in the I/O chapter. We >>>>>> did not have much time to fully discuss the additional semantics during the >>>>>> meeting. To make sure that we push towards a complete set of semantics >>>>>> useful for the I/O community in the next draft I would like to have a >>>>>> teleconf to discuss the I/O chapter of the FT proposal. Preferability in >>>>>> the next week and a half (so we have time to fine tune things before the >>>>>> next forum meeting). >>>>>> >>>>>> Below is a link to a doodle poll to find a good time for a >>>>>> teleconf. If you are interested in participating in this discussion, please >>>>>> fill this poll out by 2 PM Eastern on Thurs. Feb. 2 so we can set the >>>>>> date/time. >>>>>> http://www.doodle.com/s3hz9daeh8pn483m >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Josh >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Joshua Hursey >>>>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> MPI3-IO mailing [email protected]://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> MPI3-IO mailing list >>>>>> MPI3-IO(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Joshua Hursey >>>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Joshua Hursey >>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joshua Hursey >>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joshua Hursey >> Postdoctoral Research Associate >> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >> > > > > -- > Joshua Hursey > Postdoctoral Research Associate > Oak Ridge National Laboratory > http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey > -- Joshua Hursey Postdoctoral Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey

1 0

Re: [MPI3-IO] shared file pointer
by Quincey Koziol 13 Feb '12

13 Feb '12

Hi Mohamad, On Feb 12, 2012, at 11:52 AM, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote: > Hi All, > > So after laying out these choices, I see 3 options for the nbcio ticket: > > 1) Keep it the way it is, and adding an advise to users saying that intermixing nonblocking collective shared fp operation and independent shared fp operations is undefined. > > 2) Make the previous case illegal. > > 3) remove the nonblocking ordered operations from this ticket (to be handled in a separate ticket) > > keep in mind, as mentioned previously, we can't provide a prototype implementation for those routines. From our side, if the forum accepts only a pseudo code implementation for those routines, we would like to proceed with option 1, otherwise we would go with option 3. Sounds good to me. Quincey > > Any other opinions? > > Thanks, > Mohamad > > On 2/6/2012 1:19 PM, Dries Kimpe wrote: >> >> Yes, that's an accurate summary. >> >> Dries >> >> * Mohamad Chaarawi <chaarawi(a)hdfgroup.org> [2012-02-06 10:48:50]: >> >>> Hi Dries, >>> I'm jumping late on this thread, but to summarize so far (and correct me >>> if I made a mistake understanding), we have two cases: >>> 1) two non-blocking collective shared FP operations: >>> MPI_File_iread_ordered >>> MPI_File_iread_ordered >>> This will be ordered in the sense that the user will see that the first >>> operations will occur before the second one. >>> 2) mixed collective and independent >>> MPI_File_iread_ordered >>> MPI_File_read_shared >>> Where the choices that you mentioned apply, right? >>> * make that case illegal >>> * make it undefined >>> As you mentioned that since the split collectives leave it as undefined, >>> makes me lean more towards keeping it that way. >>> Thanks, >>> Mohamad >> >> >>> On 02/02/2012 04:22 PM, Dries Kimpe wrote: >>>> There might be some use in 'undefined ordering' as opposed to 'illegal' >>>> for those application that don't care about the ordering. >>>> Applications that do rely on the ordering can easily use the existing MPI >>>> functions to enforce ordering. >>>> So, the way I see it: 2 choices: >>>> 1) Say order is undefined in the standard (basically there's a precedent >>>> with the split collective versions). >>>> 2) Say it is illegal. The user can duplicate the file handle and easily >>>> implement their own version of what they need. >>>> (2) is easier for the implementor. >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MPI3-IO mailing list >>> MPI3-IO(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MPI3-IO mailing list >> MPI3-IO(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io > > _______________________________________________ > MPI3-IO mailing list > MPI3-IO(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io

1 0

Re: [MPI3-IO] shared file pointer
by Mohamad Chaarawi 12 Feb '12

12 Feb '12

Hi All, So after laying out these choices, I see 3 options for the nbcio ticket: 1) Keep it the way it is, and adding an advise to users saying that intermixing nonblocking collective shared fp operation and independent shared fp operations is undefined. 2) Make the previous case illegal. 3) remove the nonblocking ordered operations from this ticket (to be handled in a separate ticket) keep in mind, as mentioned previously, we can't provide a prototype implementation for those routines. From our side, if the forum accepts only a pseudo code implementation for those routines, we would like to proceed with option 1, otherwise we would go with option 3. Any other opinions? Thanks, Mohamad On 2/6/2012 1:19 PM, Dries Kimpe wrote: > Yes, that's an accurate summary. > > Dries > > * Mohamad Chaarawi<chaarawi(a)hdfgroup.org> [2012-02-06 10:48:50]: > >> Hi Dries, >> I'm jumping late on this thread, but to summarize so far (and correct me >> if I made a mistake understanding), we have two cases: >> 1) two non-blocking collective shared FP operations: >> MPI_File_iread_ordered >> MPI_File_iread_ordered >> This will be ordered in the sense that the user will see that the first >> operations will occur before the second one. >> 2) mixed collective and independent >> MPI_File_iread_ordered >> MPI_File_read_shared >> Where the choices that you mentioned apply, right? >> * make that case illegal >> * make it undefined >> As you mentioned that since the split collectives leave it as undefined, >> makes me lean more towards keeping it that way. >> Thanks, >> Mohamad > > >> On 02/02/2012 04:22 PM, Dries Kimpe wrote: >>> There might be some use in 'undefined ordering' as opposed to 'illegal' >>> for those application that don't care about the ordering. >>> Applications that do rely on the ordering can easily use the existing MPI >>> functions to enforce ordering. >>> So, the way I see it: 2 choices: >>> 1) Say order is undefined in the standard (basically there's a precedent >>> with the split collective versions). >>> 2) Say it is illegal. The user can duplicate the file handle and easily >>> implement their own version of what they need. >>> (2) is easier for the implementor. > > >> _______________________________________________ >> MPI3-IO mailing list >> MPI3-IO(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io > > > _______________________________________________ > MPI3-IO mailing list > MPI3-IO(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io

1 0

Re: [MPI3-IO] Fault Tolerance & I/O Discussion
by Josh Hursey 08 Feb '12

08 Feb '12

We will meet Wednesday, Feb. 15 at 11 am Eastern to continue our discussion of fault tolerance in the I/O chapter. We can use the following teleconf information: US Toll Free number: 877-801-8130 Toll number: 1-203-692-8690 Access Code: 1044056 Thanks, Josh On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org> wrote: > We had a good discussion today. Attached are some notes that I took from > the call. > > There were a few questions that we were discussing at the end of the call. > As a result we are going to try to setup another teleconf. > > Below is a doodle poll to pick a date/time: > http://www.doodle.com/zw83eht6hh8mwmic > > If you are interested in attending this teleconf, please fill out the poll > by 2 pm Eastern on Wednesday, Feb. 8. > > In the mean time let us keep discussing these issues on the FT and I/O > mailing lists. My preference would be to just discuss it on the FT mailing > list as there are more FT folks over there, and then we would not distract > the discussions about the other I/O tickets. > > Thanks, > Josh > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org>wrote: > >> Just a reminder that we are meeting today at Noon Eastern. Enclosed are >> the call-in details and a link to the FT stabilization proposal. >> >> Thanks, >> Josh >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org>wrote: >> >>> We will meet Monday, Feb. 6 from 12-1 pm EST/New York to discuss I/O in >>> the context of the fault tolerance proposal (or the Super Bowl if we get >>> bored). >>> >>> We can use the following teleconf information: >>> US Toll Free number: 877-801-8130 >>> Toll number: 1-203-692-8690 >>> Access Code: 1044056 >>> >>> The Run-Through Stabilization proposal can be found attached to the >>> ticket: >>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/276 >>> >>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/ticket/276/FTWG-Pro… >>> >>> We will be primarily focusing on section 17.12 of that document. I will >>> try to send out a reminder the day of. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Josh >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org>wrote: >>> >>>> Try the new link (I had to close the other poll due to a timezone >>>> problem): >>>> http://www.doodle.com/yifhpi5emyyzrspa >>>> >>>> -- Josh >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi < >>>> chaarawi(a)hdfgroup.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Josh, >>>>> >>>>> When I click the link, it says the poll has been deleted. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Mohamad >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 01/31/2012 11:52 AM, Josh Hursey wrote: >>>>> >>>>> (Cross posted to both the I/O and FT MPI-3 listservs) >>>>> >>>>> During the FT plenary session at the Jan. MPI Forum meeting there >>>>> were some concerns about fault tolerance semantics in the I/O chapter. We >>>>> did not have much time to fully discuss the additional semantics during the >>>>> meeting. To make sure that we push towards a complete set of semantics >>>>> useful for the I/O community in the next draft I would like to have a >>>>> teleconf to discuss the I/O chapter of the FT proposal. Preferability in >>>>> the next week and a half (so we have time to fine tune things before the >>>>> next forum meeting). >>>>> >>>>> Below is a link to a doodle poll to find a good time for a teleconf. >>>>> If you are interested in participating in this discussion, please fill this >>>>> poll out by 2 PM Eastern on Thurs. Feb. 2 so we can set the date/time. >>>>> http://www.doodle.com/s3hz9daeh8pn483m >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Josh >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Joshua Hursey >>>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> MPI3-IO mailing [email protected]://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> MPI3-IO mailing list >>>>> MPI3-IO(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Joshua Hursey >>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joshua Hursey >>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joshua Hursey >> Postdoctoral Research Associate >> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >> > > > > -- > Joshua Hursey > Postdoctoral Research Associate > Oak Ridge National Laboratory > http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey > -- Joshua Hursey Postdoctoral Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey

1 0

Re: [MPI3-IO] Fault Tolerance & I/O Discussion
by Josh Hursey 06 Feb '12

06 Feb '12

We had a good discussion today. Attached are some notes that I took from the call. There were a few questions that we were discussing at the end of the call. As a result we are going to try to setup another teleconf. Below is a doodle poll to pick a date/time: http://www.doodle.com/zw83eht6hh8mwmic If you are interested in attending this teleconf, please fill out the poll by 2 pm Eastern on Wednesday, Feb. 8. In the mean time let us keep discussing these issues on the FT and I/O mailing lists. My preference would be to just discuss it on the FT mailing list as there are more FT folks over there, and then we would not distract the discussions about the other I/O tickets. Thanks, Josh On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org> wrote: > Just a reminder that we are meeting today at Noon Eastern. Enclosed are > the call-in details and a link to the FT stabilization proposal. > > Thanks, > Josh > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org> wrote: > >> We will meet Monday, Feb. 6 from 12-1 pm EST/New York to discuss I/O in >> the context of the fault tolerance proposal (or the Super Bowl if we get >> bored). >> >> We can use the following teleconf information: >> US Toll Free number: 877-801-8130 >> Toll number: 1-203-692-8690 >> Access Code: 1044056 >> >> The Run-Through Stabilization proposal can be found attached to the >> ticket: >> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/276 >> >> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/ticket/276/FTWG-Pro… >> >> We will be primarily focusing on section 17.12 of that document. I will >> try to send out a reminder the day of. >> >> Thanks, >> Josh >> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org>wrote: >> >>> Try the new link (I had to close the other poll due to a timezone >>> problem): >>> http://www.doodle.com/yifhpi5emyyzrspa >>> >>> -- Josh >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi <chaarawi(a)hdfgroup.org >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Josh, >>>> >>>> When I click the link, it says the poll has been deleted. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Mohamad >>>> >>>> >>>> On 01/31/2012 11:52 AM, Josh Hursey wrote: >>>> >>>> (Cross posted to both the I/O and FT MPI-3 listservs) >>>> >>>> During the FT plenary session at the Jan. MPI Forum meeting there >>>> were some concerns about fault tolerance semantics in the I/O chapter. We >>>> did not have much time to fully discuss the additional semantics during the >>>> meeting. To make sure that we push towards a complete set of semantics >>>> useful for the I/O community in the next draft I would like to have a >>>> teleconf to discuss the I/O chapter of the FT proposal. Preferability in >>>> the next week and a half (so we have time to fine tune things before the >>>> next forum meeting). >>>> >>>> Below is a link to a doodle poll to find a good time for a teleconf. >>>> If you are interested in participating in this discussion, please fill this >>>> poll out by 2 PM Eastern on Thurs. Feb. 2 so we can set the date/time. >>>> http://www.doodle.com/s3hz9daeh8pn483m >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Josh >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Joshua Hursey >>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MPI3-IO mailing [email protected]://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MPI3-IO mailing list >>>> MPI3-IO(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joshua Hursey >>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joshua Hursey >> Postdoctoral Research Associate >> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >> > > > > -- > Joshua Hursey > Postdoctoral Research Associate > Oak Ridge National Laboratory > http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey > -- Joshua Hursey Postdoctoral Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey

1 0

Re: [MPI3-IO] shared file pointer
by Dries Kimpe 06 Feb '12

06 Feb '12

Yes, that's an accurate summary. Dries * Mohamad Chaarawi <chaarawi(a)hdfgroup.org> [2012-02-06 10:48:50]: > Hi Dries, > I'm jumping late on this thread, but to summarize so far (and correct me > if I made a mistake understanding), we have two cases: > 1) two non-blocking collective shared FP operations: > MPI_File_iread_ordered > MPI_File_iread_ordered > This will be ordered in the sense that the user will see that the first > operations will occur before the second one. > 2) mixed collective and independent > MPI_File_iread_ordered > MPI_File_read_shared > Where the choices that you mentioned apply, right? > * make that case illegal > * make it undefined > As you mentioned that since the split collectives leave it as undefined, > makes me lean more towards keeping it that way. > Thanks, > Mohamad > On 02/02/2012 04:22 PM, Dries Kimpe wrote: > > There might be some use in 'undefined ordering' as opposed to 'illegal' > > for those application that don't care about the ordering. > > Applications that do rely on the ordering can easily use the existing MPI > > functions to enforce ordering. > > So, the way I see it: 2 choices: > > 1) Say order is undefined in the standard (basically there's a precedent > > with the split collective versions). > > 2) Say it is illegal. The user can duplicate the file handle and easily > > implement their own version of what they need. > > (2) is easier for the implementor. > _______________________________________________ > MPI3-IO mailing list > MPI3-IO(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io

1 0

Re: [MPI3-IO] shared file pointer
by Mohamad Chaarawi 06 Feb '12

06 Feb '12

Hi Dries, I'm jumping late on this thread, but to summarize so far (and correct me if I made a mistake understanding), we have two cases: 1) two non-blocking collective shared FP operations: MPI_File_iread_ordered MPI_File_iread_ordered This will be ordered in the sense that the user will see that the first operations will occur before the second one. 2) mixed collective and independent MPI_File_iread_ordered MPI_File_read_shared Where the choices that you mentioned apply, right? * make that case illegal * make it undefined As you mentioned that since the split collectives leave it as undefined, makes me lean more towards keeping it that way. Thanks, Mohamad On 02/02/2012 04:22 PM, Dries Kimpe wrote: > There might be some use in 'undefined ordering' as opposed to 'illegal' > for those application that don't care about the ordering. > > Applications that do rely on the ordering can easily use the existing MPI > functions to enforce ordering. > > So, the way I see it: 2 choices: > 1) Say order is undefined in the standard (basically there's a precedent > with the split collective versions). > 2) Say it is illegal. The user can duplicate the file handle and easily > implement their own version of what they need. > > (2) is easier for the implementor.

1 0

Re: [MPI3-IO] Fault Tolerance & I/O Discussion
by Josh Hursey 06 Feb '12

06 Feb '12

Just a reminder that we are meeting today at Noon Eastern. Enclosed are the call-in details and a link to the FT stabilization proposal. Thanks, Josh On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org> wrote: > We will meet Monday, Feb. 6 from 12-1 pm EST/New York to discuss I/O in > the context of the fault tolerance proposal (or the Super Bowl if we get > bored). > > We can use the following teleconf information: > US Toll Free number: 877-801-8130 > Toll number: 1-203-692-8690 > Access Code: 1044056 > > The Run-Through Stabilization proposal can be found attached to the ticket: > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/276 > > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/ticket/276/FTWG-Pro… > > We will be primarily focusing on section 17.12 of that document. I will > try to send out a reminder the day of. > > Thanks, > Josh > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Josh Hursey <jjhursey(a)open-mpi.org>wrote: > >> Try the new link (I had to close the other poll due to a timezone >> problem): >> http://www.doodle.com/yifhpi5emyyzrspa >> >> -- Josh >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi <chaarawi(a)hdfgroup.org>wrote: >> >>> Hi Josh, >>> >>> When I click the link, it says the poll has been deleted. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mohamad >>> >>> >>> On 01/31/2012 11:52 AM, Josh Hursey wrote: >>> >>> (Cross posted to both the I/O and FT MPI-3 listservs) >>> >>> During the FT plenary session at the Jan. MPI Forum meeting there were >>> some concerns about fault tolerance semantics in the I/O chapter. We did >>> not have much time to fully discuss the additional semantics during the >>> meeting. To make sure that we push towards a complete set of semantics >>> useful for the I/O community in the next draft I would like to have a >>> teleconf to discuss the I/O chapter of the FT proposal. Preferability in >>> the next week and a half (so we have time to fine tune things before the >>> next forum meeting). >>> >>> Below is a link to a doodle poll to find a good time for a teleconf. >>> If you are interested in participating in this discussion, please fill this >>> poll out by 2 PM Eastern on Thurs. Feb. 2 so we can set the date/time. >>> http://www.doodle.com/s3hz9daeh8pn483m >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Josh >>> >>> -- >>> Joshua Hursey >>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MPI3-IO mailing [email protected]://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MPI3-IO mailing list >>> MPI3-IO(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Joshua Hursey >> Postdoctoral Research Associate >> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >> http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey >> > > > > -- > Joshua Hursey > Postdoctoral Research Associate > Oak Ridge National Laboratory > http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey > -- Joshua Hursey Postdoctoral Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey

1 0