On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 11:29:25AM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
The counterpoint is if someone does a high-core-count 32-bit arch for
HPC; x32 could (have been) such an architecture, but its development
looks stalled.
That may have been a possibility 15-20 years ago, but today anything
On 15/02/2023 00:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 02:18:06PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
On 13/02/2023 12:51, Adrian Bunk wrote:
There are a significant number of science libraries dependent on MPI.
We would need to do MPI-free builds of these libraries; I'm not sure
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 04:16:33PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
> working out which of those reverse-dependencies are
> *not* scientific applications that should drop the build-dependency rather
> than being removed, and so forth.
>
> So it's a tradeoff between the maintenance work of
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 02:18:06PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> On 13/02/2023 12:51, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:59:18AM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > The case we should make is that "no one cares about 32-bit builds" from
> > > > the starting post
On 13/02/2023 12:51, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:59:18AM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
...
The case we should make is that "no one cares about 32-bit builds" from
the starting post in the GitHub issue is not true for Debian.
We do care that it *builds*, even if it might
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:59:18AM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>...
> > The case we should make is that "no one cares about 32-bit builds" from
> > the starting post in the GitHub issue is not true for Debian.
> > We do care that it *builds*, even if it might not be actually used.
> I've been
Currently I'm favouring accepting a move to 64-bit OpenMPI as a fait
accompli as part of code cleanups for 5.X (post Bookworm), and Debian moving
to MPICH on at least 32-bit archs - I'd favour OpenMPI on 64-bit archs for
better incoming-code-and-compatability support.
I'd like to hear the case
On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:53:37AM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The push-back from upstream is that they're unconvinced anyone is actually
> using i386 for MPI.
>
> For example, MPI is configured to use PMIx but its thought that doesn't work
> on 32-bit, but no bugs have been
Hi,
The push-back from upstream is that they're unconvinced anyone is
actually using i386 for MPI.
For example, MPI is configured to use PMIx but its thought that doesn't
work on 32-bit, but no bugs have been reported.
Either we increase our 32-bit testing regime, or realistically consider
On 07/02/2023 10:27, Drew Parsons wrote:
On 2023-02-07 10:54, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
Hi
I've been pinged by the upstream maintainer of OpenMPI Jefff
Squyres as to our opinions on maintaining 32-bit support.
See a thread here: https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/pull/11282
If 32-bit
Hi Alastair,
Thanks for relaying OpenMPI's upstream
maintainer's interest in our opinions on
maintaining 32 bit support.
My humble comments are
1.) 32 bit hardware can be more secure because
it's so old it predates back doors known as
Intel's Management Engine[1] and
On 2023-02-07 10:54, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
Hi
I've been pinged by the upstream maintainer of OpenMPI Jefff
Squyres as to our opinions on maintaining 32-bit support.
See a thread here: https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/pull/11282
Until now I've asked for OMPI to hold off going to 64-bit
Hi
I've been pinged by the upstream maintainer of OpenMPI Jefff Squyres
as to our opinions on maintaining 32-bit support.
See a thread here: https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/pull/11282
Until now I've asked for OMPI to hold off going to 64-bit only; saying
we can help with the
13 matches
Mail list logo
