On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:55:20PM +0000, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > Hmm. I'm of split mind here. > > I can see what Howard is saying here -- adding complexity is usually a bad > thing. > > But we have gotten these problem reports multiple times over the years: > someone *thinking* that they have built with launcher support X (e.g., TM, > LSF), but then figuring out later that things aren't running as expected, and > after a bunch of work, figure out that it's because they didn't build with > support X. > > Gilles idea actually sounds interesting -- if the tm module detect some of > the sentinel PBS/TM env variables, emit a show_help() if we don't have full > TM support compiled in. This would actually save some users a bunch of time > and frustration. > > --> Keep in mind that the SLRUM launcher is different, because it's all > CLI-based (not API-based) and therefore we always build it (because we don't > have to find headers and libraries). > > FWIW, we do have precedent of having extra MCA params for users to turn off > warnings that they don't want to see. > > I guess the question here is: is there a valid use case for running in > PBS/Torque and *not* wanting to use the TM launcher?
Once case comes to mind. In the case of Cray systems that unfortunately run Moab/Toque we can launch using either alps or torque (Howard correct me if I am wrong). When Sam and I originally wrote the XE support we used alps instead of torque. I am not entirely sure what we do now. -Nathan
pgplimhF5bE4i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
