[Beowulf] The Case for an MPI ABI
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Greg Lindahl lindahl at pathscale.comThu Feb 24 11:13:26 PST 2005
- Previous message: [Beowulf] The Case for an MPI ABI
- Next message: [Beowulf] [Clusters_sig] The kernel and cluster issues (fwd from cherry@osdl.org)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 02:30:09PM +0100, Joachim Worringen wrote: > This problem left apart, do you know of ISV's that would at least be > willing to think about giving support to an MPI ABI no matter which > implementation and interconnect, and not a specific MPI library? Because > this is what matters. As I wrote in my talk, no. Some ISVs will balk because of the testing issue. However, it is much easier to test against new libraries if there is an ABI, and no recompilation means no worrying about recompilation bugs. > For open source software packages alone, an ABI is not of critical > importance as people with a tcp/ip cluster can use pre-linkked packages, > and people with a high-perfomance interconnect cluster typically have > enough competence to compile the software themselves. An ABI is still useful for these people. Even if you are using ethernet and TCP/IP, if you have a queue system and have integrated with LAM, a pre-linked package using MPICH is not so useful. Critically important? Probably not. Important? Yes. > I did not think of this, but more of issues like "string as an argument" > as the way how the string length is passed is not standardized. Yes, but on x86 and x86-64, Intel and PGI and g77 and PathScale all use the same convention. > Then there are issues with getting access to global variables from > COMMON blocks This is not an issue, because the MPI interface does not use COMMON blocks. The most annoying issue is command-line args, but I am about to write (and will give away) an Amazing Universal Fortran Command Line Arg Fetcher (AUFCLAF). > This does not mean that we should not continue thinking about an ABI, > but there's more than unifying mpi.h to be able to use a single shared > library. I agree. I wasn't claiming to have a final solution for the issues. The important thing at this stage is not to solve all the issues, but to see if the benefits of an ABI are compelling enough to form a committee and work on it. -- greg
- Previous message: [Beowulf] The Case for an MPI ABI
- Next message: [Beowulf] [Clusters_sig] The kernel and cluster issues (fwd from cherry@osdl.org)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
