Hi Ralph I think the alternative you mention below should suffice.
Howard r...@open-mpi.org <r...@open-mpi.org> schrieb am Mo. 19. Juni 2017 um 07:24: > So what you guys want is for me to detect that no opal/pmix framework > components could run, detect that we are in a slurm job, and so print out > an error message saying “hey dummy - you didn’t configure us with slurm pmi > support”? > > It means embedding slurm job detection code in the heart of ORTE (as > opposed to in a component), which bothers me a bit. > > As an alternative, what if I print out a generic “you didn’t configure us > with pmi support for this environment” instead of the “pmix select failed” > message? I can mention how to configure the support in a general way, but > it avoids having to embed slurm detection into ORTE outside of a component. > > > On Jun 16, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > > +1 on the error message. > > > > > > > >> On Jun 16, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Howard Pritchard <hpprit...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Ralph > >> > >> I think a helpful error message would suffice. > >> > >> Howard > >> > >> r...@open-mpi.org <r...@open-mpi.org> schrieb am Di. 13. Juni 2017 um > 11:15: > >> Hey folks > >> > >> Brian brought this up today on the call, so I spent a little time > investigating. After installing SLURM 17.02 (with just --prefix as config > args), I configured OMPI with just --prefix config args. Getting an > allocation and then executing “srun ./hello” failed, as expected. > >> > >> However, configuring OMPI --with-pmi=<path-to-slurm> resolved the > problem. SLURM continues to default to PMI-1, and so we pick that option up > and use it. Everything works fine. > >> > >> FWIW: I also went back and checked using SLURM 15.08 and got the > identical behavior. > >> > >> So the issue is: we don’t pick up PMI support by default, and never > have due to the SLURM license issue. Thus, we have always required that the > user explicitly configure --with-pmi so they take responsibility for the > license. This is an acknowledged way of avoiding having GPL pull OMPI under > its umbrella as it is the user, and not the OMPI community, that is making > the link. > >> > >> I’m not sure there is anything we can or should do about this, other > than perhaps providing a nicer error message. Thoughts? > >> Ralph > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> devel mailing list > >> devel@lists.open-mpi.org > >> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > >> _______________________________________________ > >> devel mailing list > >> devel@lists.open-mpi.org > >> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > > > -- > > Jeff Squyres > > jsquy...@cisco.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > devel@lists.open-mpi.org > > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@lists.open-mpi.org > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
