Hmm. I'm not sure the BML is the right place to do this. The BML
doesn't know anything about the internals of the BTLs; it's just a
dispatch / multiplexer.
Unfortunately, few of us are in a good place to respond at the moment
-- SC is next week and we're all hosed trying to get ready for
Ralph,
Very good document.
About the MPI layer (in case of fault), my idea is to give to BML the
ability to handle BTL errors which occurs when a process die (and
probably have been migrated), discovering the new location. I think that
it is possible because the HNP request the restart for th
If you look at the Dec meeting wiki, you will see that we are moving
quickly to a modex-less launch anyway. It won't be the default because
it requires pre-discovery of the cluster's network resources (for
which we will provide a tool or method), but it will help resolve some
of these probl
Jeff,
I agree with your viewpoint, principally about the "reachability". But...
Looking from the FT viewpoint, sometimes (or some FT architectures), wants to
recover an application process on other node different from the first. In this
case a new modex should be called. It's fine for coordina
On Nov 7, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Leonardo Fialho wrote:
I understand that a process need to have the contact information to
send MPI messages to other processes, and modex permits it. My
question is, why do not perform the contact exchange when it is
necessary?
For example: in a M/W applicati
Hi All,
I understand that a process need to have the contact information to send
MPI messages to other processes, and modex permits it. My question is,
why do not perform the contact exchange when it is necessary?
For example: in a M/W application, the workers does not need more
information
