On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 at 10:30:07PM +0300, Tziporet Koren wrote:
> Main reasons to keep MPI in OFED:
> - All participants test with the same MPI versions, and when installing
> OFED it is ensured that MPI will work fine with this version.
> - Customers convenience in install (no need to go to more
On Jun 3, 2009, at 3:39 AM, Pawel Dziekonski wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 at 10:30:07PM +0300, Tziporet Koren wrote:
Main reasons to keep MPI in OFED:
- All participants test with the same MPI versions, and when
installing
OFED it is ensured that MPI will work fine with this version.
- Custome
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 at 10:14:07AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 3:39 AM, Pawel Dziekonski wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 at 10:30:07PM +0300, Tziporet Koren wrote:
>>
>>> Main reasons to keep MPI in OFED:
>>> - All participants test with the same MPI versions, and when installing
>
Hi,
I vote to remove.
This is our Open MPI team leader answer:
I think it should be taken out from the following reasons:
ompi related build errors or bugs can affect OFED release dates
many customers prefer their own mpi packages
almost all linux distros contain pre-compiled mpi rpms which can
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 19:14 +0200, Pawel Dziekonski wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 at 10:14:07AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2009, at 3:39 AM, Pawel Dziekonski wrote:
> >> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 at 10:30:07PM +0300, Tziporet Koren wrote:
> >>
> >>> Main reasons to keep MPI in OFED:
> >>> -
Tziporet,
>Main reasons to keep MPI in OFED:
>- All participants test with the same MPI versions, and when installing
>OFED it is ensured that MPI will work fine with this version.
>- Customers convenience in install (no need to go to more sites to get
MPI)
>- MPI is an important RDMA ULP and alth
...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Dhabaleswar Panda
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:02 PM
To: Tziporet Koren
Cc: EWG; OpenFabrics General
Subject: Re: [ewg] RFC: Do we wish to take MPI out of OFED?
Tziporet,
>Main reasons to keep MPI in OFED:
>- All participants test with the same MPI version
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 14:02 -0400, Dhabaleswar Panda wrote:
> Tziporet,
>
> >Main reasons to keep MPI in OFED:
> >- All participants test with the same MPI versions, and when installing
> >OFED it is ensured that MPI will work fine with this version.
> >- Customers convenience in install (no need
- Need to synchronize between different projects
The synchronization between OFED and MPIs are minimal.
In most cases OFED just take last available MPI version.
It happens that OFED discovers some really critical bug
and we ask MPI to provide new version. But for critical
bugs, MPI team anyway
I care about both. I care about the fact that a solid, well adhered to
API makes for lots of happy MPI campers, not just one happy MPI camper.
And the API road is the path to long term interoperability, not just
short term. So if you really care about MPI, I would recommend you look
to the lon
On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 11:36 +0300, Pavel Shamis (Pasha) wrote:
> > I care about both. I care about the fact that a solid, well adhered to
> > API makes for lots of happy MPI campers, not just one happy MPI camper.
> > And the API road is the path to long term interoperability, not just
> > short t
: Tziporet Koren
> Cc: EWG; OpenFabrics General
> Subject: Re: [ewg] RFC: Do we wish to take MPI out of OFED?
>
>
> > - Need to synchronize between different projects
> The synchronization between OFED and MPIs are minimal.
> In most cases OFED just take last available MPI ve
etc.
-Original Message-
From: ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org
] On Behalf Of Dhabaleswar Panda
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:02 PM
To: Tziporet Koren
Cc: EWG; OpenFabrics General
Subject: Re: [ewg] RFC: Do we wish to take MPI out of OFED?
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:44:09AM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> 3. As Doug described, packaging MPI and OFED together actually makes it
> *harder* for distros. Remember that RHEL and SUSE don't end up using any
> of the OFED packaging; they essentially use the individual SRPMs.
I would almost
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 09:44 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> 3. As Doug described, packaging MPI and OFED together actually makes
> it *harder* for distros. Remember that RHEL and SUSE don't end up
> using any of the OFED packaging; they essentially use the individual
> SRPMs.
One minor clarifi
Doug wrote,
>One minor clarification, it's not so much the RPM packaging that makes
>things difficult, it's the compatibility matrix. Since things aren't
>designed to cleanly inter-operate with each other in anything other than
>very specific combinations, it means that updates are an all or not
On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 13:51 -0700, Woodruff, Robert J wrote:
> Doug wrote,
>
> >One minor clarification, it's not so much the RPM packaging that makes
> >things difficult, it's the compatibility matrix. Since things aren't
> >designed to cleanly inter-operate with each other in anything other th
age-
> From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-
> boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Dhabaleswar Panda
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:02 PM
> To: Tziporet Koren
> Cc: EWG; OpenFabrics General
> Subject: [ofa-general] Re: [ewg] RFC: Do we wi
On Jun 8, 2009, at 6:59 AM, Todd Rimmer wrote:
I agree with DK from OSU. There are clear advantages to having MPI
included with OFED. Not only will it make testing of a complete
solution easier by both OFED and MPI suppliers,
Can you specify how, specifically?
Remember that all that Op
I can see from the mails and from my personal experience that most of
the "end users" do not need/use the MPI coming as part of OFED (they
have many different MPI installed in their clusters), as we can see
distro are not using it and also some (if not all) of OFED binary
package providers (i.e
On Jun 15, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Pavel Shamis (Pasha) wrote:
> We think that the simple & clear answer is: "take the MPI packages
out
> of OFED"
It is not so simple and clear for me after all this discussion on
the thread. Some OFED member want to remove MPIs and some strongly
against it (the
Pasha wrote,
>It is not so simple and clear for me after all this discussion on the
>thread.
>Some OFED member want to remove MPIs and some strongly against it (the
>same correct for OFED user community
>too).
I would agree, there is clearly no consensus on this one and
I do not thing there is
Woodruff, Robert J wrote:
I would agree, there is clearly no consensus on this one and
I do not thing there is going to be.
I think there has probably been enough discussion on this one. We can
re-discuss it at the next EWG meeting, but I would say that given
that lack of consensus, we should pro
.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Tziporet Koren
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 5:34 AM
To: Woodruff, Robert J
Cc: OpenFabrics General; EWG; Pavel Shamis (Pasha)
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] RE: [ewg] RFC: Do we wish to take MPI out of OFED?
Woodruff, Robert J wrote:
> I would agree, there is clearly no con
On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Ryan, Jim wrote:
Tziporet, there is some guidance on this question from the Bylaws:
"...ARTICLE 14. MAINTENANCE OF AND MODIFICATION TO OPENFABRICS
SOFTWARE STACKS
14.1Updates. By a majority vote, the Board or its designated
Working Group may at any time
: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 7:39 AM
To: Ryan, Jim
Cc: Tziporet Koren; Woodruff, Robert J; EWG; OpenFabrics General; Pavel Shamis
(Pasha)
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] RE: [ewg] RFC: Do we wish to take MPI out of OFED?
On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Ryan, Jim wrote:
> Tziporet, there is some guidance
: Ryan, Jim
Cc: Tziporet Koren; Woodruff, Robert J; EWG; OpenFabrics General;
Pavel Shamis (Pasha)
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] RE: [ewg] RFC: Do we wish to take MPI out
of OFED?
On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Ryan, Jim wrote:
> Tziporet, there is some guidance on this question from the Bylaws:
>
27 matches
Mail list logo
