Subject: JGSI Reviews Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:20:04 -0400 Resent-From: Geoffrey Fox Resent-To: p_gcf@npac.syr.edu Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 19:43:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Chi Chao Chang To: gcf@npac.syr.edu CC: chichao@cs.cornell.edu Geoffrey, Enclosed are the reviews of papers C414, C423 and C428. I apologize for the tardiness: I just moved to the west coast and had to take care of a few things before I could get back to business. Please let me know when the final version is due. Thanks. -- Chi-Chao --- C428 JGSI Review Overall recommendation: accept Comments: Good paper. It would be interesting to see how the performance numbers break down into computation and communication phases (especially for applications such as SOR where the communication phase would be the exchange phase). Don't bother with TSP and IDA: their irregularity makes it difficult to obtain any meaningful breakdown. However, I'd like to hear a little bit more about IDA in the discussion section. In particular, my own experience with IDA (the version downloadable from the web) indicates that its measured execution times have huge variances: in average, the speed up for 8 nodes is poor (less than 2). I am interested in knowing whether the authors observed something similar. Just my two cents worth. The paper is fine as is. C423 JGSI Review Overall recommendation: accept Comments: Good paper. I enjoyed reading it. It would be nice to compare Jaguar with Microsoft's J/direct technology in the related work section. They use source-level annotations to annotate pinned objects (e.g. "embedded arrays") which are propagated to the JIT compiler through unused byte-code attributes. Because of a poor implementation (unclear whether it is due to some MSJVM shortcoming or to plain incompetency), the measured J/Direct performance is aweful :-) So there would be no need to show those numbers (although doing so would further strengthen your case!). C414 JGSI Review Overall recommendation: accept Comments: Nice paper. It would be interesting to see more application results. I was quite disappointed with paraffins when I personally looked at it: it wasn't doing a whole lot. I understand that getting the entire RMI benchmark suite takes some time, so you might want to consider doing it for a later submission. The paper is fine as is. Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 21:57:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Chi-Chao Chang X-UIDL: bcc87a3c764a8ea7ac87b3723e884819 ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 21:34:46 -0400 From: Geoffrey Fox Organization: Syracuse University X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: chichao@CS.Cornell.EDU Subject: Reviewing Java Grande Special Issue of Concurrency:Practice and Experience Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There seemed to be agreement that it was reasonable to do internal reviews and that each author team be responsible for 3 papers http://www.npac.syr.edu/users/gcf/cpande/ holds the papers Due date for 3 reviews is Saturday September 18 Please email me a review. Your Papers are: C414 C423 C428 As all papers have had some sort of review to jump hurdle into conference (albeit some as posters), the goal of reviews is to improve presentations and not to unnecessarily decimate the submissions. Many of you indicated papers you would like to referee and I could not satisfy all requests as some papers had more than 3 volunteer reviews! everybody I believe has most of their requests honored Just email me referee report with subject: Number of paper (CXXX) followed by characters "JGSI Review" in body of email, please indicate a)Overall Recommendation b)Words suitable for authors c)Words for me if necessary Thank you ------- End of forwarded message -------