Understood - but can we narrow it down a bit? Specifically, do we need both BTL and MTL access to the same network? This would cut the combinations by 2x right away. Then we could potentially remove the network-specific MTLs.
Then we just have to deal with UCX vs libfabric - so only the two decision levels (UCX vs libfabric, network) > On Oct 20, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > On Oct 20, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: >> >> Your last point about the qualifiers is kinda what I was hinting at in my >> note. If you have usnic support via the OFi MTL, why do you also need it as >> a BTL? The BTL needs libfabric anyway, yes? So is there some value in having >> both methods? > > Maybe, maybe not. I don't know yet. > > Likely, there will be benefits/tradeoffs to each path. > >> Same question for PSM and PSM2, and probably others I imagine. Do we really >> need all these multiple ways? > > MXM is the same category. > > UCX will add additional combinations to get the same underlying network, too. > > So if both libfabric and UCX get market penetration, we'll *have* to address > the issue of having multiple API paths to get to the same underlying network. > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/10/18213.php
