Hi,
Let's assume that BSPPeer1 send a message to BSPPeer7.
Currently, BSPPeer1 send a message to GroomServerA first, and then
GroomServerA send to GroomServerC. Finally, BSPPeer7 will receive that
message from GroomServerC.
> 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?
So again, the communication will be occurred among Invoked (child)
processes directly. BSPPeer1 <-> BSPPeer7.
P.S., The reason why we don't use the multi-threads inside
GroomServer, is related with killing job/task.
> 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?
There's no change. BSPPeer knows all peer names, and barrier will be
managed by ZK.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:22 PM, ChiaHung Lin <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
--
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
@eddieyoon
