On Jun 23, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Joshua Bernstein wrote:
> Bummer! I would absolutely support, (along with Penguin) further
> contributions and development of BProc support.
> Note, though that BProc Scyld, and LANL BProc, have long ago forked.
> We believe our BProc functionality has been developed beyond what
> was running at LANL, (for example we have support for threads...). I
> understand it it probably too late to add BProc in for 1.3, but
> perhaps for subsequent releases, combined with contributions from
> Penguin, BProc support could be resurrected in some capacity.
That would be absolutely fabulous.
>> Great! It sounds like you need to get involved, though, to
>> preserve bproc support going forward. LANL was the only proponent
>> of bproc-like support; they have been moving away from bproc-like
>> clusters, however, and so support faded. We made the decision to
>> axe bproc support in v1.3 because there was no one to maintain
>> it. :-(
> This is what I'm in the process of doing right now. I'd like to be
> able to take the existing BProc functionality and modify if needed
> to support our BProc. I have buy in from the higher ups around here,
> and I will proceed with the Membership forms likely at the
> "Contributer" level, considering we hope to be contributing code.
> Signing of the 3rd part contribution agreement shouldn't be an issue.
Excellent. I'll let Ralph chime in with the relevant technical
details. AFAIK, bproc works just fine in the v1.2 series (they use it
at LANL every day). But note that we changed a *LOT* in ORTE between
v1.2 and v1.3; the BPROC support will likely need to be re-written.
This is likely worth some phone calls to describe what will be needed.