[Beowulf] [OT] MPI-haters

[Jeff Becker]

On 03/10/2016 10:32 AM, Prentice Bisbal wrote:
> This list used to get A LOT more traffic. Not sure what happened over 
> the past few years. I miss the witty banter and information I used to 
> get from all that traffic, but I definitely don't miss Vincent.

:-)
>
> Prentice
>
> On 03/10/2016 06:36 AM, C Bergström wrote:
>> Given the relatively low volume here I may not disagree with you, but
>> the topics may touch on something that others consider "trollish" -
>> Having a focused group allows those who are interested to participate
>> and others who simply don't care about MPI-alternatives or my opinions
>> about what sucks.
>>
>> I also plan to promote the group besides just here - I don't feel
>> comfortable advertising a bunch of people to subscribe to a beowulf
>> mailing list which I can't even help moderate. (Seems impolite at
>> best)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Prentice Bisbal
>> <prentice.bisbal at rutgers.edu> wrote:
>>> On 03/04/2016 05:43 AM, C Bergström wrote:
>>>> Sorry for the shameless self indulgence, but there seems to be a
>>>> growing trend of love/hate around MPI. I'll leave my opinions aside,
>>>> but at the same time I'd love connect and host a list where others who
>>>> are passionate about scalability can vent and openly discuss ideas.
>>>>
>>>> Despite the comical name, I've created mpi-haters mailing list
>>>> http://lists.pathscale.com/mailman/listinfo/mpi-haters_lists.pathscale.com 
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the beowulf lift serves that exact purpose rather well. I 
>>> honestly
>>> don't see the need for a separate list for those topics, I think 
>>> this list
>>> is an appropriate venue. But since I hate to be left out of any
>>> conversation, I subscribed to it any way.
>>>>
>>>> To start things off - Some of the ideas I've been privately bouncing
>>>> around
>>>>
>>>> Can current directive based approaches (OMP/ACC) be extended to scale
>>>> out. (I've seen some research out of Japan on this or similar)
>>>>
>>>> Is Chapel c-like syntax similar enough to easily implement in clang
>>>>
>>>> Can one low level library succeed at creating a clean interface across
>>>> all popular industry interconnects (libfabrics vs UCX)
>>>>
>>>> Real world success or failure of "exascale" runtimes? (What's your
>>>> experience - lets not pull any punches)
>>>>
>>>> I won't claim to see ridiculous scalability in most web applications
>>>> I've worked on, but they had so many tools available - Why have I
>>>> never heard of memcache being used in a supercomputer and or why isn't
>>>> sharding ever mentioned...
>>>>
>>>> Everyone is welcome and lets keep it positive and fun - invite your
>>>> friends
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ./C
>>>>
>>>> ps - Apologies if you get this message more than once.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin 
>>>> Computing
>>>> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
>>>> http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin 
>>> Computing
>>> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
>>> http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit 
> http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf