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: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-12 09:24:32

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

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]
> >
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]

Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems