Another thing that might be useful is at the end of configure print out a list of each framework with a list of components and some build info (static vs dynamic, etc). Something like:
plm: alps (dynamic) rsh (dynamic) tm (dynamic) -Nathan On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 01:46:44PM -0800, Ralph Castain wrote: > That makes sense, Paul - what if we output effectively the ompi_info > summary of what was built at the end of the make install procedure? Then > you would have immediate feedback on the result. > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > As one who builds other people's software frequently, I have my own > opinions here. > Above all else, is that there is no one "right" answer, but that > consistency with in a product is best. > So (within reason) the same things that work to configure module A and B > should work with C and D as well. > To use an analogy from (human) languages, I dislike "irregular verbs". > The proposal to report (at run time) the existence of TM support on the > system (but lacking in ORTE), doesn't "feel" consistent with existing > practice. > In GASNet we *do* report at runtime if a high-speed network is present > and you are not using it. > For instance we warn if the headers were missing at configure time but > we can see the /dev entry at runtime. > However, we do that uniformly across all the networks and have done this > for years. > So, it is a *consistent* practice in that project. > Keep It Simple Stupid is also an important one. > So, I agree with those who think the proposal to catch this at runtime > is an unnecessary complication. > I think improving the FAQ a good idea > I do, however, I can think of one thing that might help the "I thought I > had configured X" problem Jeff mentions. > What about a summary output at the end of configure or make? > Right now I sometimes use something like the following: > $ grep 'bindings\.\.\. yes' configure.out > $ grep -e 'component .* can compile\.\.\. yes' configure.log > This lets me see what is going to be built. > Outputing something like this a the end of configure might encourage > admins to check for their feature X before typing "make" > The existing configury goop can easily be modified to keep a list of > configured components and language bindings. > However, another alternative is probably easier to implement: > The last step of "make install" could print a message like > NOTICE: Your installation is complete. > NOTICE: You can run ompi_info to verify that all expected components > and language bindings have been built. > -Paul > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) > <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Haters gotta hate. ;-) > > Kidding aside, ok, you make valid points. So -- no tm "addition". We > just have to rely on people using functionality like "--with-tm" in > the configure line to force/ensure that tm (or whatever feature) will > actually get built. > > > On Jan 25, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > > > > I think we would be opening a real can of worms with this idea. > There are environments, for example, that use PBSPro for one part of > the system (e.g., IO nodes), but something else for the compute > section. > > > > Personally, I'd rather follow Howard's suggestion. > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Nathan Hjelm <hje...@lanl.gov> > wrote: > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > de...@open-mpi.org > > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/01/18509.php > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > de...@open-mpi.org > > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/01/18510.php > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/01/18511.php > > -- > Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov > Computer Languages & Systems Software (CLaSS) Group > Computer Science Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900 > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/01/18513.php > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/01/18514.php
pgpOSDH1L7o_O.pgp
Description: PGP signature
