From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_FAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA0BBC6B for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:18:00 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAKO+8EbAXQImn2dsb2JhbACOEgIBAQcEBgcIGA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,273,1186351200"; d="scan'208";a="16420488" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2007 15:19:14 +0200 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l8JDIOoE018463 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:18:32 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAKO+8EZQW+UCh2dsb2JhbACOEgIBCAon X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,273,1186351200"; d="scan'208";a="1409722" Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) ([80.91.229.2]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2007 15:19:11 +0200 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IXzKa-00058V-CT for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:11:04 +0200 Received: from ivr94-8-88-162-26-239.fbx.proxad.net ([88.162.26.239]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:11:04 +0200 Received: from li by ivr94-8-88-162-26-239.fbx.proxad.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:11:04 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Zheng Li Subject: Re: Can coThreads be used for message passing architecture? Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:59:50 +0200 Message-ID: <878x72olo9.fsf@pps.jussieu.fr> References: <87lkb5fe3f.fsf@pps.jussieu.fr> <87sl5d8cgd.fsf@pps.jussieu.fr> <20070919201144.634be18a.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> <87ps0e9b1m.fsf_-_@fel.cvut.cz> <20070919211346.02e1a947.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ivr94-8-88-162-26-239.fbx.proxad.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:B2RaXHzWKN/5RDAeA+ZGQ4GZXhw= Sender: news X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 46F121A0.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 wrote:01 pps:01 pps:01 jussieu:01 jussieu:01 writes:01 reuse:01 networker:03 networker:03 seems:03 mpi:04 erik:04 passing:05 passing:05 Hi, Erik de Castro Lopo writes: > Jan Kybic wrote: >> I have had only a quick look at the web page but I did not understand >> whether and how can coThreads be used on a cluster of independent >> computers (Beowulf-style) that are only connected by network (no >> shared memory) for which I normally use MPI (message passing). > >>>From the TODO file, it seems that the networker engine is not yet > complete which means the answer to your question is no (at least > for now). Yes, he is right. What you're thinking about is the networker engine. It is not available for now but planned for the future. You'll still be able to have shared memory through STM, though the communication cost will be larger. The implementation is no more difficult than the process engine, on the contrary it can reuse most of the techniques developed with process engine. But I'm kind of busy in this period, and won't be able to start the implementation right now. -- Zheng Li http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~li