Karen, I am forwarding the email I sent before (on 12/20/07), which talks about examples using itaps-parallel functionality and also talks about some of the missing ones. If possible we would like to spent some time on it during our ITAPS phone conf. tomorrow (01/18/08). Thanks, Onkar
The ITAPS Parallel Interface Subcommittee will have a phone conference on Friday, 1/18, at 1PM PST.
Please read Carl's list of functions that would have to be modified to include partition and part handles. Be prepared to decide whether this list is small enough to be accepted into the parallel interface and large enough to provide the needed functionality.
Karen
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: examples using itaps-parallel functionality and missing ones From: "Onkar Sahni" <[email protected]> Date: Thu, December 20, 2007 12:15 pm To: [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have created 4 applicable examples that demonstrate usage of basic/low-level itaps-parallel functionality (i.e., not loading of mesh but more on inter-part links etc.). I have attached the .pdf file and source .tex file too. Please review it and let us know your comments and/or questions. In this process, we found few things missing and inconsistent in our current ITAPS document. I apologize to not catch them before but the issues are minor IMO (will not cause major heartburns). All the issues are related to entity functionality, see below: 1) Missing func. on setting of remote copies: We added functionality to get remote copies of entities but do not have anything for setting them. One example, where it will be needed is in mesh modifications like split/division of elements (that breaks inter-part links which requires repair/update). 2) Missing func. on residence parts: Again, we added functionality for remote copies which indirectly tells residence parts of an entity but no functionality to explicitly (and only) get residence parts, i.e., without remote copies (more of convenience). For applications that just need to know residence parts and not remote copies of entities. And mostly we would not need functionality to set residence parts as it will be induced by setting of remote copies. 3) Inconsistency in entity functionality with part handle: In entity functionality for providing copies of entities we would need part handle too. Current document talks in terms of partition instance and entity handle. 4) Inconsistency in copies of entities: In first function under "provide information about copies of entities", we may want to rephrase last part as: "copies of the entity on parts in the partition" (currently is says "copies of the entity on processes in the partition's communicator"). Moreover, do we want to include entity itself when providing (remote-) copies. Please let us know your comments and/or questions. Thanks, Onkar