Awesome.  Thanks.  I'll try it again then.  I appreciate the help.

(Austin is also my name.  I save space in my memory by going to school at, 
living in and being a guy with the same name.)

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:40:09 PM UTC-5, Erik Schnetter wrote:
>
> AB
>
> You're speaking of Stampede, if I might guess from the "austin" prefix in 
> your email address. I would treat the old and the new section of the 
> machines as separate, since they are not binary compatible. If you are 
> really interested in the KNL part, then I'd concentrate on these, and use 
> the development mode to always log in, build on, and run on the KNL nodes, 
> and ignore everything else. Mixing different architectures in a single 
> Julia environment is something I'd tackle much later, if at all.
>
> Alternatively you can use "haswell" as CPU architecture (instead of 
> "core2" above), which should work both on the front end as well as the KNL 
> nodes. However, this way you will lose speed on the KNL nodes, except for 
> linear algebra operations.
>
> -erik
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:26 PM, ABB <austi...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> wrote:
>
>> This is great - thanks for getting back to me so quickly.
>>
>> To follow up, I have two small questions:
>>
>> - To build specifically for the KNL system I should include something 
>> like "JULIA_CPU_TARGET = knl" in the Make.user file?
>>
>> - Part of the system is KNL, part of it is "Intel Xeon E5 Sandy Bridge 
>> and the Intel Knights Corner (KNC) coprocessor"  (the exact system is 
>> this one: https://portal.tacc.utexas.edu/user-guides/stampede ).  Is 
>> there a way to build for both of the architectures?  I think I read in 
>> another issue somewhere that it wasn't possible to support the Knights 
>> Corner because of (if I recall correctly) lack of LLVM support or something 
>> (maybe I am completely making that up) so if it's not possible I wouldn't 
>> be surprised.  (The two sections of Stampede run different versions of 
>> Linux too, if that makes it even more complicated.  I'd just be happy to 
>> get it running one way or the other.)
>>
>> Thanks again!
>>
>> AB
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:10:48 PM UTC-5, Erik Schnetter wrote:
>>>
>>> AB
>>>
>>> Using "core2" is a fallback that will work on very old machines. In your 
>>> case -- if this happens to be a more modern, uniform HPC system -- you 
>>> might want to use a different architecture. For example, if you're building 
>>> on the compute nodes, and never run on the front end, then the default 
>>> should already work for you. Otherwise, choosing "knl" as architecture 
>>> should also work (and would also make it impossible to run on the front 
>>> end).
>>>
>>> -erik
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:18 PM, ABB <austi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I built Julia Version 0.5.1-pre+2 on a cluster I have access to. 
>>>>
>>>> The login node on which I executed the build has this architecture:
>>>>
>>>> Intel Core i7-5000 Extreme Edition (Haswell R2) / Xeon E5-x600 v3 
>>>> (Haswell-EP C1/M1/R2), 22nm
>>>>
>>>> The compute node has this architecture:
>>>>
>>>> Intel Xeon Phi Coprocessor (Knights Landing), 14nm
>>>>
>>>> (Those are each the last line of the output of "cpuid")
>>>>
>>>> when I try to run anything, I get the error:
>>>>
>>>> ERROR: Target architecture mismatch. Please delete or regenerate 
>>>> sys.{so,dll,dylib}.
>>>>
>>>> I found this old discussion:
>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/julia-dev/Eqp0GhZWxME/3mGKX1l_L9gJ
>>>>
>>>> which recommends using 
>>>>
>>>> JULIA_CPU_TARGET = core2
>>>>
>>>> in the Make.user file.
>>>>
>>>> Since that discussion is 2 years old, I am just double checking to see 
>>>> if that's still the best advice or if there is something else I should try 
>>>> first and/or instead.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks! 
>>>>
>>>> AB
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Erik Schnetter <schn...@gmail.com> 
>>> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/
>>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Erik Schnetter <schn...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/
>

Reply via email to