Re: [Users] use of NO_ALLOCATION in simfactory machine definition files

[Frank Loeffler]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:58:27PM -0400, Erik Schnetter wrote:
This looks like a good idea. We might need to update the MDB definition 
as

well to make this key either required or optional (don't know which is
better).


That is a good thought. Not every machine requires an allocation name. 
If we would make it a required field, it would force users to choose 
something even for machine that don't need it. On the other hand, we 
could work around that by providing 'something' (notneeded?) for those 
machines, and not use the string in the qsub script. Although, that does 
sound a little 'hacky'.


I would suspect that making it optional begs the question what 
simfactory should use to replace the potentially present strings in the 
qsub file with, and why it should warn or abort if none was given.


Frank



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Users mailing list
Users@einsteintoolkit.org
http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [Users] use of NO_ALLOCATION in simfactory machine definition files

[Frank Loeffler]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:51:08AM -0500, Roland Haas wrote:

I would like to remove the

allocation = NO_ALLOCATION

lines from simfactory's machine definition files.


I think this is fine, as long as simfactory aborts if none was set. This 
would a nice improvement.


Frank



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Users mailing list
Users@einsteintoolkit.org
http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [Users] use of NO_ALLOCATION in simfactory machine definition files

[Erik Schnetter]

Roland

NO_ALLOCATION was introduced for backward compatibility. Initially, most
Simfactory users used the same allocation (LSU numrel group), and we
entered this into the MDB. Later this was not a good default any more, so
we replaced it with something "neutral".

This looks like a good idea. We might need to update the MDB definition as
well to make this key either required or optional (don't know which is
better).

-erik


On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Roland Haas  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I would like to remove the
>
> allocation = NO_ALLOCATION
>
> lines from simfactory's machine definition files.
>
> They seem to have not benefit that I can see and cause two types of
> problems:
>
> * simfactory does not default to the allocation in the [default]
>   section which is the only one set up when doing sim setup on the
>   cluster itself
>
> * simfactory does not warn/abort if no allocation is set for the
>   cluster since as far as simfactory is concerned, there actually is an
>   allocation defined (namely "NO_ALLOCATION"). This is eventually
>   caught by qsub and friends but simfactory's handling of qsub errors
>   is not very good unfortunately
>
> Does anyone remember why we introduced NO_ALLOCATION? And would anyone
> object to remove it from all the affected ini files (which is most of
> them it seems).
>
> Yours,
> Roland
>
> --
> My email is as private as my paper mail. I therefore support encrypting
> and signing email messages. Get my PGP key from http://keys.gnupg.net.
>
> ___
> Users mailing list
> Users@einsteintoolkit.org
> http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>


-- 
Erik Schnetter 
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/
___
Users mailing list
Users@einsteintoolkit.org
http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users