This topic has gotten a *lot* of off-list discussion. :-)
Just to tie up the thread for the web archives: this topic will be discussed on
the Tuesday teleconf next week. Terry: please add this to the Tuesday agenda.
On Feb 8, 2012, at 9:53 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> I agree - we do have
I agree - we do have better things to do than argue about things that have no
impact on anyone not choosing to use them.
If you had read the RFC, you would have seen that the Hadoop businesses are
unwilling to trust their future to a 3rd party bolt-on that already shows
bit-rot. Hence, the
3 anonymous accesses and 12 developer accesses from 2010-11-25 till today,
that's what the mpiJava project hosted on sourceforge got. It tends to say
something about the need for such a binding now, the size of the community
requiring such a binding and about the support Open MPI should throw
No problems, Paul. I appreciate your input.
If everything in the trunk was required to in the standard, then much of the
trunk would have to be removed (e.g., all the fault tolerance code). As Jeff
indicated, the trunk is an area in which we bring new functionality for broader
exposure. I very
Ralph,
I think you and I may be confusing each other with the meaning of
"standard":
You asked me
So I'm not sure what you are asking that hasn't already been done…
My reply to that question is that when I wrote
a) a standard to which the bindings can claim to conform
I meant "a) JAVA
On Feb 7, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
> So I'd propose that the work be done on a branch and the RFC can be reissued
> when there is both
> a) a standard to which the bindings can claim to conform
I don't really agree with this statement; see my prior email.
> b) an
On Feb 7, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
> Forgive me if I misunderstand, but I am under the impression that the MPI
> Forum has not begun any standardization of MPI bindings for JAVA. Have I
> missed something?
No, they haven't - but that doesn't mean that the bindings cannot
On Feb 7, 2012, at 2:33 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> This doesn't sound like a very good idea, despite a significant support from
> a lot of institutions. There is no standardization efforts in the targeted
> community, and championing a broader support in the Java world was not one of
> our
Forgive me if I misunderstand, but I am under the impression that the
MPI Forum has not begun any standardization of MPI bindings for JAVA.
Have I missed something?
-Paul
On 2/7/2012 12:39 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
We already have a stable, standard interface for non-C language bindings, Paul
We already have a stable, standard interface for non-C language bindings, Paul
- the C++ bindings, for example, are built on top of them.
The binding codes are all orthogonal to the base code. All they do is massage
data access and then loop back to the C bindings. This is the normal way we
As an HPC software developer and user of OMPI, I'd like to add my $0.02
here even though I am not an OMPI developer.
Nothing in George's response seems to me to preclude the interested
institutions (listed as FROM in the RFC) from forking a branch to pursue
this work until there can be
:-)
I agree, and I don't sense anyone pushing the direction of distorting the
current MPI behaviors. There are some good business reasons to want to use MPI
in the analytics, and there are thoughts on how to work around the failure
issues, but Hadoop clusters have some mechanisms available to
Ralph,
I am not totally against the idea. As long as Hadoop is not taking
away the current task communication mechanism until MPI finally (there
are just too many papers on FT MPI, I remember reading checkpointing
MPI jobs more than 10 years ago!) has a standard way to handle node
failure, then I
Nobody is asking us to make any decision or take a position re standardization.
The Hadoop community fully intends to bring the question of Java binding
standards to the Forum over the next year, but we all know that is a long,
arduous journey. In the interim, they not only asked that we
The community is aware of the issue. However, the corporations
interested/involved in this area are not running on EC2 nor concerned about
having allocations taken away. The question of failed nodes is something we
plan to address over time, but is not considered an immediate show-stopper.
On
Currently, Hadoop tasks (in a job) are independent of each. If Hadoop
is going to use MPI for inter-task communication, then make sure they
understand that the MPI standard currently does not address fault
folerant.
Note that it is not uncommon to run map reduce jobs on Amazon EC2's
spot
This doesn't sound like a very good idea, despite a significant support from a
lot of institutions. There is no standardization efforts in the targeted
community, and championing a broader support in the Java world was not one of
our main target.
OMPI does not include the Boost bindings,
FROM: LANL, HLRS, Cisco, Oracle, and IBM
WHAT: Adds Java bindings
WHY: The Hadoop community would like to use MPI in their efforts, and most of
their code is in Java
WHERE: ompi/mpi/java plus one new config file in ompi/config
TIMEOUT: Feb 10, 2012
Hadoop is a Java-based environment for
18 matches
Mail list logo
