This looks ok from the perspective of executing function. In addition, I have a
few questions and would like to gain more ideas on how it may work after
refactored.
From the GroomServer source, it seems that BSPPeer and Task perform different
roles where Task takes responsibility of task execution and BSPPeer in
communication (sync, send). What's the benefit of mering two different roles
into one?
How do a BSPPeer distinguish other peers only related to computation itself
involved in? For instance, each GroomServer has 3 tasks where tasks are divided
into 3 groups including {1,4,7}, {2,5,8} and {3,6,9}. How do they communicate
e.g without falsely sync with different peers?
GroomServerA GroomServerB GroomServerC
BSPPeer1 BSPPeer4 BSPPeer7
BSPPeer2 BSPPeer5 BSPPeer8
BSPPeer3 BSPPeer6 BSPPeer9
-----Original message-----
From:Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]>
To:[email protected]
Date:Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:48:48 +0900
Subject:About HAMA-410
Hi,
To support multi-tasks, I'm thinking about merging BSPPeer and Task.
Then, communication will be occurred among Tasks directly. I think,
there's no need to manage BSPPeers inside GroomServer.
Can we think about the latent side-effects from this decision, together?
Thanks.
--
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
@eddieyoon
--
ChiaHung Lin
Department of Information Management
National University of Kaohsiung
Taiwan
