From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-23 07:54:01
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Matthias Troyer wrote:
>> Indeed this sounds like a lot of work and that's why this mechanism
>> for message passing was rarely used in the past. The hard part is to
>> manually build up the custom MPI datatype, i.e. to inform MPI about
>> what the offsets and types of the various data members in a struct
>> This is where the serialization library fits in and makes the task
>> extraordinarily easy. Saving a data member with such an MPI archive
>> will register its address, type (as well as the number of identical
>> consecutive elements in an array) with the MPI library. Thus the
>> serialization library does all the hard work already!
> I still don't see the 10x speedup in the subject. For a X, the two
> approaches are:
> 1. for each x in X, "serialize" into an MPI descriptor
Do you mean "datatype?" ------------------------^^^^^^^^^^
> 2. serialize X into an MPI descriptor, construct an array descriptor from
> Conceptual issues with (2) aside (the external format of X is determined by
> X itself and you have no idea whether the structure of X also describes
I don't know what you mean.
> I'm not sure that there will be such a major speedup compared to the
> naive (1).
Why the doubt? We've measured. Furthermore, as we stated earlier, in
our application we can't afford to make an in-memory copy because it
would take more than the available memory.
> Robert's point also deserves attention; a portable binary archive
> that writes directly into a socket eliminates the MPI middleman and
> will probably achieve a similar performance as your two-pass MPI
I'll let the experts say more, but AFAICT MPI provides essential
services that aren't provided by plain sockets. See
> It also supports versioned non-PODs and other nontrivial types.
What does? Such an archive?
> As an example, I have a type which is saved as
> save( x ):
> save( x.anim.name() ); // std::string
> and loaded as
> load( x ):
> string tmp;
> load( tmp );
> x.set_animation( tmp );
> Not everything is field-based.
Yes of course. Our approach supports those types too; but you can
only take advantage of a subset of the optimizations for that part of
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk