Re: [easybuild] FOSS vs CUDA

[Robert Schmidt]

I don't think anyone feels very strongly about foss ideologically, it is
just a name that is better than goolf. The bioinfo people tend to use it
for ease of support as much of the software is built with it already and
absolute best performance isn't always more important than getting the
compilation done in less time.


On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:55 PM Maxime Boissonneault <
maxime.boissonnea...@calculquebec.ca> wrote:

> Hi David,
> Understood. We also go for minimal toolchains. We're however doing mostly
>
> dummy -> GCCcore -> iccifort -> iompi -> iomkl -> iomklc
> and
> dummy -> GCCcore -> gcc -> gompi -> gomkl -> gomklc
>
>
> Maxime
>
>
>
> On 17-03-02 18:38, Vanzo, Davide wrote:
>
> Maxime,
> your point it totally legitimate. My approach is less about philosophy and
> more about practicality.
> We picked the foss toolchain instead of the goolf toolchain because of its
> more collaborative nature and scheduled release. The problem is that if we
> now start using a goolfc toolchain, we could not get the benefit of reusing
> most of the software built with foss since we build with minimal
> toolchains. Hence I proposed of starting a fosscuda toolchain that is
> aligned with the foss release. That's it.
>
> --
> Davide Vanzo, PhD
> Application Developer
> Adjunct Assistant Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
> Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education (ACCRE)
> Vanderbilt University - Hill Center 201
> (615)-875-9137 <(615)%20875-9137>
> www.accre.vanderbilt.edu
>
> On Mar 2 2017, at 5:30 pm, Maxime Boissonneault
> 
>  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've seen a couple emails about CUDA recently, and I was a bit surprised
> to see work done about FOSS and CUDA.
>
> Isn't the whole point of FOSS to be free and open source ? CUDA is not
> open source. Won't die-hard fan of FOSS object to having CUDA in a FOSS
> toolchain ?
>
> I personally don't really care, I just want the best performance for my
> users (which is why we don't go with FOSS in the first place, since MKL
> gives better performances than OpenBLAS).
>
> I just thought I'ld raise the question.
>
>
> --
> -
> Maxime Boissonneault
> Analyste de calcul - Calcul Québec, Université Laval
> Président - Comité de coordination du soutien à la recherche de Calcul
> Québec
> Team lead - Research Support National Team, Compute Canada
> Instructeur Software Carpentry
> Ph. D. en physique
>
>
>
> --
> -
> Maxime Boissonneault
> Analyste de calcul - Calcul Québec, Université Laval
> Président - Comité de coordination du soutien à la recherche de Calcul Québec
> Team lead - Research Support National Team, Compute Canada
> Instructeur Software Carpentry
> Ph. D. en physique
>
>

Re: [easybuild] FOSS vs CUDA

[Maxime Boissonneault]

Hi David,
Understood. We also go for minimal toolchains. We're however doing mostly

dummy -> GCCcore -> iccifort -> iompi -> iomkl -> iomklc
and
dummy -> GCCcore -> gcc -> gompi -> gomkl -> gomklc

Maxime


On 17-03-02 18:38, Vanzo, Davide wrote:

Maxime,
your point it totally legitimate. My approach is less about philosophy 
and more about practicality.
We picked the foss toolchain instead of the goolf toolchain because of 
its more collaborative nature and scheduled release. The problem is 
that if we now start using a goolfc toolchain, we could not get the 
benefit of reusing most of the software built with foss since we build 
with minimal toolchains. Hence I proposed of starting a 
fosscuda toolchain that is aligned with the foss release. That's it.


--
Davide Vanzo, PhD
Application Developer
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education (ACCRE)
Vanderbilt University - Hill Center 201
(615)-875-9137
www.accre.vanderbilt.edu

On Mar 2 2017, at 5:30 pm, Maxime Boissonneault 
 wrote:


Hi,

I've seen a couple emails about CUDA recently, and I was a bit
surprised
to see work done about FOSS and CUDA.

Isn't the whole point of FOSS to be free and open source ? CUDA is
not
open source. Won't die-hard fan of FOSS object to having CUDA in a
FOSS
toolchain ?

I personally don't really care, I just want the best performance
for my
users (which is why we don't go with FOSS in the first place,
since MKL
gives better performances than OpenBLAS).

I just thought I'ld raise the question.


-- 
-

Maxime Boissonneault
Analyste de calcul - Calcul Québec, Université Laval
Président - Comité de coordination du soutien à la recherche de
Calcul Québec
Team lead - Research Support National Team, Compute Canada
Instructeur Software Carpentry
Ph. D. en physique




--
-
Maxime Boissonneault
Analyste de calcul - Calcul Québec, Université Laval
Président - Comité de coordination du soutien à la recherche de Calcul Québec
Team lead - Research Support National Team, Compute Canada
Instructeur Software Carpentry
Ph. D. en physique

Re: [easybuild] FOSS vs CUDA

[Vanzo, Davide]

Maxime,
your point it totally legitimate. My approach is less about philosophy and more 
about practicality.
We picked the foss toolchain instead of the goolf toolchain because of its more 
collaborative nature and scheduled release. The problem is that if we now start 
using a goolfc toolchain, we could not get the benefit of reusing most of the 
software built with foss since we build with minimal toolchains. Hence I 
proposed of starting a fosscuda toolchain that is aligned with the foss 
release. That's it.

--
Davide Vanzo, PhD
Application Developer
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education (ACCRE)
Vanderbilt University - Hill Center 201
(615)-875-9137
www.accre.vanderbilt.edu

On Mar 2 2017, at 5:30 pm, Maxime Boissonneault 
 wrote:

Hi,

I've seen a couple emails about CUDA recently, and I was a bit surprised
to see work done about FOSS and CUDA.

Isn't the whole point of FOSS to be free and open source ? CUDA is not
open source. Won't die-hard fan of FOSS object to having CUDA in a FOSS
toolchain ?

I personally don't really care, I just want the best performance for my
users (which is why we don't go with FOSS in the first place, since MKL
gives better performances than OpenBLAS).

I just thought I'ld raise the question.

--
-
Maxime Boissonneault
Analyste de calcul - Calcul Québec, Université Laval
Président - Comité de coordination du soutien à la recherche de Calcul Québec
Team lead - Research Support National Team, Compute Canada
Instructeur Software Carpentry
Ph. D. en physique

[easybuild] FOSS vs CUDA

[Maxime Boissonneault]

Hi,

I've seen a couple emails about CUDA recently, and I was a bit surprised 
to see work done about FOSS and CUDA.


Isn't the whole point of FOSS to be free and open source ? CUDA is not 
open source. Won't die-hard fan of FOSS object to having CUDA in a FOSS 
toolchain ?


I personally don't really care, I just want the best performance for my 
users (which is why we don't go with FOSS in the first place, since MKL 
gives better performances than OpenBLAS).


I just thought I'ld raise the question.


--
-
Maxime Boissonneault
Analyste de calcul - Calcul Québec, Université Laval
Président - Comité de coordination du soutien à la recherche de Calcul Québec
Team lead - Research Support National Team, Compute Canada
Instructeur Software Carpentry
Ph. D. en physique