Ah, Nathan read my mind! This is (more or less) what I suggest in the post I was typing when Nathan's post arrived.
-Paul On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Nathan Hjelm <hje...@lanl.gov> wrote: > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/2016/01/18515.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
