BTW, I think, I have to split task into smaller tasks. > It would be great if you can do this, I'd really like to do some tasks. But I don't want to force you to merge everything together, since you've already made a lot in your patch.
2011/7/12 Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]>: > It's not a problem if they use different port numbers. > > This is good discussion. > > BTW, I think, I have to split task into smaller tasks. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 11, 2011, at 6:06 PM, "ChiaHung Lin" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> A bit more questions. >> >> Suppose the BSPPeer1, on GroomServer A, talks to BSPPeer7 at GroomServer C. Now when BSPPeer2, also on GroomServer A, wants to synchronize with BSPPeer8. How will GroomServer C know which peer (e.g. {7,8,9}) to be synchronized with BSPPeer2 from GroomServer A? >> >> The current implementation in trunk seems only identify peerName, which consists of host:port value. Therefore, during the sync() stage, the outgoingqueue probably would be confused which task/ BSPPeer the message to be deliver. This potentially might have issue when performing checkpoint. For checkpointing, the state e.g an incoming message is needed to be saved to persistent storage so that in the recovery stage, previous state can be rollback. >> >> >> -----Original message----- >> From:Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]> >> To:[email protected],[email protected] >> Date:Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:51:05 +0900 >> Subject:Re: About HAMA-410 >> >> 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 >> >> >> -- >> ChiaHung Lin >> Department of Information Management >> National University of Kaohsiung >> Taiwan > -- Thomas Jungblut Berlin mobile: 0170-3081070 business: [email protected] private: [email protected]
