Re: [O-MPI users] Fwd: Fwd: [Beowulf] MorphMPI based on fortran itf

[Tim Prins]

Quoting Toon Knapen :

> Tim Prins wrote:
>
> > I am in the process of developing MorphMPI and have designed my
> > implementation a bit different than what you propose (my apologies
> if I
> > misunderstood what you have said). I am creating one main library,
> which
> > users will compile and run against, and which should not need to
> be
> > recompiled. This library will then open a plugin depending on what
> MPI
> > the user would like to use. Then, it will dynamically open the
> actual
> > MPI implementation. In other words, to add support for another MPI
> one
> > would just need to drop the appropriate plugin into the right
> directory.
>
>
> Thus IIUC, the app calls your lib and your lib on its turn calls a
> plugin?
Not quite. The plugin will merely consist of a data table, which will
tell me all I need to know about the MPI and how to call its functions.
Thus the app will call a function in MorphMPI which will in turn call a
function in the actual MPI.

> This involves two dereferences. My idea was to (be able to)
> recompile the MorphMPI for each of the MPI lib's and plug this one
> between the app and the MPI. AFACIT this approach has the same set
> of
> features but is more lightweight.
However, if you have to recompile MorphMPI for each mpi, you loose a lot
of the benefits of having an ABI, i.e. being able to easily run with
multiple implementations without recompiling. In this project I am
really going for easy extensibility and ease of use for the user.

>
> Is your project open-source? If so, can I check it out?
It will be open-source, but right now this project is still in its early
stages so there is nothing to release yet.

Tim

Re: [O-MPI users] Fwd: Fwd: [Beowulf] MorphMPI based on fortran itf

[Toon Knapen]

Tim Prins wrote:

> I am in the process of developing MorphMPI and have designed my
> implementation a bit different than what you propose (my apologies if I
> misunderstood what you have said). I am creating one main library, which
> users will compile and run against, and which should not need to be
> recompiled. This library will then open a plugin depending on what MPI
> the user would like to use. Then, it will dynamically open the actual
> MPI implementation. In other words, to add support for another MPI one
> would just need to drop the appropriate plugin into the right directory.


Thus IIUC, the app calls your lib and your lib on its turn calls a
plugin? This involves two dereferences. My idea was to (be able to)
recompile the MorphMPI for each of the MPI lib's and plug this one
between the app and the MPI. AFACIT this approach has the same set of
features but is more lightweight.

Is your project open-source? If so, can I check it out?

toon