On Sat, 08 Dec 2007, Geoff Jacobs wrote:
> But isn't CAF (and UPC, and Titanium) implicitly message passing for a
> Beowulf anyway? It's attractive because it simplifies the process and
> might be able to optimize communication, but underneath everything it's
> still message passing.
It's message passing to the extent that two processes exchange
"messages" over a network -- but it isn't MPI message passing which
would mean receiver-directed matching and placement of data. On
clusters with advanced network interfaces, the level of message
passing would translate into low-level RDMA operations whereas an SMP
would implement these "messages" as reads and writes to physically
addressable memory.
What's meant by "message" requires a definition -- one can argue that
invalidating a cache line means sending a "message" to the cache
controller but it's far from what people usually think as MPI-level
messages. PGAS attempts to provide "better programmability" while
targeting low-level communication primitives that do not involve the
MPI-level message passing baggage (matching, two-sided, pairwise
synchronization).
. . christian
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(QLogic Host Solutions Group, formerly Pathscale)
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
