Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Meta Question -- Open MPI: Is it a dessert toppingor is it a floor wax?
From: Richard Graham (rlgraham_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-12 13:22:28


I am assuming that by distributed OS you are referring to the changes that
we (not just ORNL) are trying to do. If this is the case, this is a
mischaracterization of the of out intentions. We have two goals

  - To be able to use a different run-time than ORTE to drive Open MPI
  - To use the communication primitives outside the context of MPI (with or
without ORTE)

High performance is critical, and at NO time have we ever said anything
about sacrificing performance - these have been concerns that others
(rightfully) have expressed.

Rich

On 3/12/09 8:24 AM, "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I think I have to agree with Terry.
>
> I love to inspire and see new, original, and unintended uses for Open
> MPI. But our primary focus must remain to create, maintain, and
> continue to deliver a high performance MPI implementation.
>
> We have a long history of adding "small" things to Open MPI that are
> useful to 3rd parties because it helps them, helps further Open MPI
> adoption/usefulness, and wasn't difficult for us to do ("small" can
> have varying definitions). I'm in favor of such things, as long as we
> maintain a policy of "in cases of conflict, OMPI/high performance MPI
> wins".
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
>
>> Sun's participation in this community was to obtain a stable and
>> performant MPI implementation that had some research work done on the
>> side to improve those goals and the introduction of new features. We
>> don't have problems with others using and improving on the OMPI code
>> base but we need to make sure such usage doesn't detract from our
>> primary goal of performant MPI implementation.
>>
>> However, changes to the OMPI code base to allow it to morph or even
>> support a distributed OS does cause for some concern. That is are we
>> opening the door to having more interfaces to support? If so is this
>> wise in the fact that it seems to me we have a hard enough time trying
>> to focus on the MPI items? Not to mention this definitely starts
>> detracting from the original goals.
>>
>> --td
>>
>> Andrew Lumsdaine wrote:
>>> Hi all -- There is a meta question that I think is underlying some
>> of
>>> the discussion about what to do with BTLs etc. Namely, is Open
>> MPI an
>>> MPI implementation with a portable run time system -- or is it a
>>> distributed OS with an MPI interface? It seems like some of the
>>> changes being asked for (e.g., with the BTLs) reflect the latter --
>>> but perhaps not everyone shares that view and hence the impedance
>>> mismatch.
>>>
>>> I doubt this is the last time that tensions will come up because of
>>> differing views on this question.
>>>
>>> I suggest that we come to some kind of common understanding of the
>>> question (and answer) and structure development and administration
>>> accordingly.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Andrew Lumsdaine
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> devel mailing list
>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>