From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-29 10:06:20
On Jun 28, 2006, at 11:29 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> I see that this requires any one of three MPI implementations -- and
> there are a lot of differences between these implementations
> internally and architecturally.
In theory, the candidate Boost.MPI should work with any MPI that
meets the MPI 1.1 specification. In practice, we tend to test with
those three implementations.
> There's also the question of compiler
> compliance, and platform dependence
You'll need a modern C++ compiler to use the candidate Boost.MPI. It
should be platform-agnostic, but again--we only typically test a few
platforms, namely x86 Linux, x86-64 Linux, and PowerPC Mac OS X.
> -- although I haven't seen the
> code yet, my question would be more of pragmatic in the sense that it
> maintain a common STL-like interface without breaking the
> distributed/parallel computing frame.
> I would like to see really more of this -- though much like in
> parallel supercomputing applications, the issue really will be more of
> performance than anything.
Although we have yet to run the tests with the candidate Boost.MPI,
we ran NetPIPE numbers using a prototype of the same C++ interface.
There was no impact on either bandwidth or latency.
> Anyone in the list can do a review right?
I know there are a few Boosters that are in the HPC/parallel
computing area. I'm also planning to strong-arm whatever MPI experts
I can find :)