I am assuming that by distributed OS you are referring to the changes that we (not just ORNL) are trying to do. If this is the case, this is a mischaracterization of the of out intentions. We have two goals
- To be able to use a different run-time than ORTE to drive Open MPI - To use the communication primitives outside the context of MPI (with or without ORTE) High performance is critical, and at NO time have we ever said anything about sacrificing performance - these have been concerns that others (rightfully) have expressed. Rich On 3/12/09 8:24 AM, "Jeff Squyres" <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > I think I have to agree with Terry. > > I love to inspire and see new, original, and unintended uses for Open > MPI. But our primary focus must remain to create, maintain, and > continue to deliver a high performance MPI implementation. > > We have a long history of adding "small" things to Open MPI that are > useful to 3rd parties because it helps them, helps further Open MPI > adoption/usefulness, and wasn't difficult for us to do ("small" can > have varying definitions). I'm in favor of such things, as long as we > maintain a policy of "in cases of conflict, OMPI/high performance MPI > wins". > > > On Mar 12, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Terry Dontje wrote: > >> Sun's participation in this community was to obtain a stable and >> performant MPI implementation that had some research work done on the >> side to improve those goals and the introduction of new features. We >> don't have problems with others using and improving on the OMPI code >> base but we need to make sure such usage doesn't detract from our >> primary goal of performant MPI implementation. >> >> However, changes to the OMPI code base to allow it to morph or even >> support a distributed OS does cause for some concern. That is are we >> opening the door to having more interfaces to support? If so is this >> wise in the fact that it seems to me we have a hard enough time trying >> to focus on the MPI items? Not to mention this definitely starts >> detracting from the original goals. >> >> --td >> >> Andrew Lumsdaine wrote: >>> Hi all -- There is a meta question that I think is underlying some >> of >>> the discussion about what to do with BTLs etc. Namely, is Open >> MPI an >>> MPI implementation with a portable run time system -- or is it a >>> distributed OS with an MPI interface? It seems like some of the >>> changes being asked for (e.g., with the BTLs) reflect the latter -- >>> but perhaps not everyone shares that view and hence the impedance >>> mismatch. >>> >>> I doubt this is the last time that tensions will come up because of >>> differing views on this question. >>> >>> I suggest that we come to some kind of common understanding of the >>> question (and answer) and structure development and administration >>> accordingly. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Andrew Lumsdaine >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> devel mailing list >>> de...@open-mpi.org >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >