On 03/04/2016 05:43 AM, C Bergström wrote:
Sorry for the shameless self indulgence, but there seems to be a
growing trend of love/hate around MPI. I'll leave my opinions aside,
but at the same time I'd love connect and host a list where others who
are passionate about scalability can vent and openly discuss ideas.
Despite the comical name, I've created mpi-haters mailing list
http://lists.pathscale.com/mailman/listinfo/mpi-haters_lists.pathscale.com
I think the beowulf lift serves that exact purpose rather well. I
honestly don't see the need for a separate list for those topics, I
think this list is an appropriate venue. But since I hate to be left out
of any conversation, I subscribed to it any way.
To start things off - Some of the ideas I've been privately bouncing around
Can current directive based approaches (OMP/ACC) be extended to scale
out. (I've seen some research out of Japan on this or similar)
Is Chapel c-like syntax similar enough to easily implement in clang
Can one low level library succeed at creating a clean interface across
all popular industry interconnects (libfabrics vs UCX)
Real world success or failure of "exascale" runtimes? (What's your
experience - lets not pull any punches)
I won't claim to see ridiculous scalability in most web applications
I've worked on, but they had so many tools available - Why have I
never heard of memcache being used in a supercomputer and or why isn't
sharding ever mentioned...
Everyone is welcome and lets keep it positive and fun - invite your friends
./C
ps - Apologies if you get this message more than once.
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
