Re: [OMPI devel] [devel-core] [RFC] Runtime Services Layer

On 8/27/07 7:30 AM, "Tim Prins" wrote: > Ralph, > > Ralph H Castain wrote: >> Just returned from vacation...sorry for delayed response > No Problem. Hope you had a good vacation :) And sorry for my super > delayed response. I have been pondering this a bit. > >> In

Re: [OMPI devel] [devel-core] [RFC] Runtime Services Layer

Ralph, Ralph H Castain wrote: Just returned from vacation...sorry for delayed response No Problem. Hope you had a good vacation :) And sorry for my super delayed response. I have been pondering this a bit. In the past, I have expressed three concerns about the RSL. My bottom line

Re: [OMPI devel] [devel-core] [RFC] Runtime Services Layer

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, George Bosilca wrote: > On Aug 24, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Tim Prins wrote: > > I do not understand why a user should have to use a RTE which supports > > every system ever imagined, and provides every possible fault-tolerant > > feature, when all they want is a thin RTE. > > We

Re: [OMPI devel] [devel-core] [RFC] Runtime Services Layer

On Aug 24, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Tim Prins wrote: Again, my main concern is about fault tolerance. There is nothing in PMI (and nothing in RSL so far) that allow any kind of fault tolerance [And believe me re-writing the MPICH mpirun to allow checkpoint/restart is a hassle]. I am open to any

Re: [OMPI devel] [devel-core] [RFC] Runtime Services Layer

On Aug 24, 2007, at 9:08 AM, George Bosilca wrote: By heterogeneous RTE I was talking about what will happened once we have the RSL. Different back-end will support different features, so from the user perspective we will not provide a homogeneous execution environment in all situations. On the

Re: [OMPI devel] [devel-core] [RFC] Runtime Services Layer

George Bosilca wrote: Looks like I'm the only one barely excited about this idea. The system that you described, is well known. It been around for around 10 years, and it's called PMI. The interface you have in the tmp branch as well as the description you gave in your email are more than

Re: [OMPI devel] [devel-core] [RFC] Runtime Services Layer

George Bosilca wrote: Looks like I'm the only one barely excited about this idea. The system that you described, is well known. It been around for around 10 years, and it's called PMI. The interface you have in the tmp branch as well as the description you gave in your email are more

Re: [OMPI devel] [devel-core] [RFC] Runtime Services Layer

Looks like I'm the only one barely excited about this idea. The system that you described, is well known. It been around for around 10 years, and it's called PMI. The interface you have in the tmp branch as well as the description you gave in your email are more than similar with what they

Re: [OMPI devel] [devel-core] [RFC] Runtime Services Layer

On Friday 17 August 2007 10:53:41 am Richard Graham wrote: > Tim, > This looks like a good idea, and is a good step toward componentizing the > run-time services the are available from the MPI's perspective. > A few comments: > - It is a good idea to play around in a sandbox to see what may

Re: [OMPI devel] [devel-core] [RFC] Runtime Services Layer

On Friday 17 August 2007 08:40:01 am Jeff Squyres wrote: > I am definitely interested to see what the RSL turns out to be; I > think it has many potential benefits. There are also some obvious > issues to be worked out (e.g., mpirun and friends). Yeah, thinking through this and talking to others,