: 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:
>
: 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
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
.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
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
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
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
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 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 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, but it will also improve ease of use for end users. As
DK points out there are continual improvements in MPIs whic
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
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 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
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
A few clarifications are probably worthwhile at this point.
1. No one is suggesting divorcing MPI from the OFED testing/release
cycle. It's obviously a Good Thing (and has been stated multiple
times on this thread). It is easy to indicate "good combos" of MPI
and OFED in documentation and
15 matches
Mail list logo
