3 ms·
> Unfortunately, today’s programming models and languages don’t offer any mechanism for such dynamic recovery from faults. Sounds like somebody needs to learn
by mietek 11y ago
> Unfortunately, today’s programming models and languages don’t offer any mechanism for such dynamic recovery from faults.
Sounds like somebody needs to learn about Erlang.
> In June 2012, members of an international forum composed of vendors, academics, and researchers from the United States, Europe, and Asia met and discussed adding resilience to message-passing interface, or MPI, the programming model used in nearly all supercomputing code. Those present at that meeting voted that the next version of MPI would have no resilience capabilities added to it. So for the foreseeable future, programming models will continue to offer no methods for notification or recovery from faults.
Well, no.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040918131755/http://www.sics.se/~joe/thesis/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20040918131755/http://www.sics.se...
- Animats 11y agoOn supercomputers, you're often doing some big, tightly coupled numerical job. That's what you buy supercomputers for. The unit of rerun is perhaps hours of computation on thousands of CPUs. If you're doing a large number of transactions, you have big clusters of relatively ordinary CPUs. The unit of rerun is one transaction.
- mietek 11y agoIf you’re using MPI, you’re doing message-passing. If you’re doing message-passing and you have no methods for notification or recovery from faults, you’re doing it wrong.