On Jan 27, 2012, at 6:58 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 17:48, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > Is now the right time. Shouldn't we wait until MPI's replacement is working > and do things with that model? > > I'm laughing. Am I supposed to be? > > I'm laughing too. > > There isn't going to be a replacement for MPI until the smart people that > understand parallel programming, performance, and libraries start working on > something other than MPI. But most of those people are on the MPI Forum, > trying to improve MPI. Now we need a good model for threads, and that might > not be based on MPI, but it sure looks like the large-scale > distributed-memory model will be MPI for the foreseeable future. >
I don't think its a matter of smart people not having worked on this, they have IMO, its just a hard problem. > > As for sources of parallel errors, yes, it's somewhat tricky, but as long as > the model is to get a sub-object out of a bigger one (submatrix, coarse > level, etc), I think we can manage it. At any particular time, the user > should still be looking at essentially single-comm collections of objects, > but not all processes will end up being called in every context. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120127/3069696b/attachment.html>
