parallel particles wo cheetah

[Steve Nolen]

is there a mixed signal in all of this?  i'm trying to get a r2 version of
mc++ running again.  i need parallelism with particles.  my particles
(neutrons) do not need to interact with fields.  the following emails tell
me that i should use cheetah, but when i report a blatant, uncompilable bug,
it gets dismissed because another email informs me that cheetah is no longer
supported.  i have tried to compile examples/Particles/Bounce with
standalone mpi, but i get a ton of errors.  is this a known deficiency?

Steve Nolen wrote:


should i even be using cheetah for communications? i thought this was the
preferred path. is pooma's internal message passing sufficient?



Cheetah is still supported by POOMA, but it is stable. No development has
happened for several years. Thus, POOMA + Cheetah should still work and will
continue to work for the foreseeable future.

MPI support for POOMA was recently added. To use it, configure POOMA with
the '--mpi' option, not the '--messaging' Cheetah option. One can search the
POOMA source code for 'POOMA_MPI' to see the places that have been modified.

As a conservative user, I usually recommend using a configuration that
currently works well rather than switching to a newer version. Thus, I
suggest continuing to use Cheetah unless you expect some advantage unknown
to me from switching.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey D. Oldham [mailto:oldham at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:28 PM
To: Steve Nolen
Cc: Pooma
Subject: Re: [pooma-dev] error in downloadable cheetah package


Steve Nolen wrote:




line 224 of MatchingHandler/MatchingAction.h should have "extra_m", not
"extra"





Thank you for using Cheetah and for the error report. Cheetah is not
under active development so incorporating this correction in the release
is unlikely to happen in the near future.



--
Jeffrey D. Oldham
oldham at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx