Re: [OMPI users] BLCR support not building on 1.5.3

[Joshua Hursey]

I'm glad that worked.

I understand the confusion. The configure output could be better. It shouldn't 
be too difficult to cleanup. I filed a ticket so we don't forget about this 
issue. The ticket is linked below if you are interested:
  https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/2807

Next time I cycle back to the C/R functionality I'll try to address it, but if 
someone else beats me to it then that should be reflected in the ticket.

-- Josh

On May 27, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Bill Johnstone wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> 
> Thank you very much for this.  I've replied further below:
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
>> From: Joshua Hursey 
> [...]
>> What other configure options are you passing to Open MPI? Specifically the 
>> configure test will always fail if '--with-ft=cr' is not specified - by 
>> default Open MPI will only build the BLCR component if C/R FT is requested 
>> by 
>> the user.
> 
> This was it!  Now the BLCR supports builds in just fine.
> 
> If I may offer some feedback:
> 
> When I think "Checkpoint/Restart", I don't immediately think "Fault 
> Tolerance"; rather, I'm interested in it for a better alternative to 
> suspend/resume.  So I had *no* idea turning on the "ft" configure option this 
> was a prerequisite for BLCR support to compile from just reading the 
> configure help, configure output, docs, etc.
> 
> I'd like to request that this be made easier to spot.  At a minimum, the 
> configure -help output could mention this when it gets to talking about BLCR, 
> or C/R in general.
> 
> Additionally, in general when configuring components, it would be nice in the 
> config logs if there was a way to get more details about the tests (and why 
> they failed) than just "can compile...no".  This may require more invasive 
> changes - not being super-knowledgeable about configure, I don't know how 
> much work this would be.
> 
> Lastly, the standard Open MPI documentation (particularly the FAQ) could be 
> updated in the C/R or BLCR sections to reflect the need for the 
> "--with-ft=cr" argument.
> 
> Again, I really appreciate the assistance.
> 
> ___
> users mailing list
> us...@open-mpi.org
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
> 

Re: [OMPI users] BLCR support not building on 1.5.3

[Bill Johnstone]

Hello,


Thank you very much for this.  I've replied further below:


- Original Message -
> From: Joshua Hursey 
[...]
> What other configure options are you passing to Open MPI? Specifically the 
> configure test will always fail if '--with-ft=cr' is not specified - by 
> default Open MPI will only build the BLCR component if C/R FT is requested by 
> the user.

This was it!  Now the BLCR supports builds in just fine.

If I may offer some feedback:

When I think "Checkpoint/Restart", I don't immediately think "Fault Tolerance"; 
rather, I'm interested in it for a better alternative to suspend/resume.  So I 
had *no* idea turning on the "ft" configure option this was a prerequisite for 
BLCR support to compile from just reading the configure help, configure output, 
docs, etc.

I'd like to request that this be made easier to spot.  At a minimum, the 
configure -help output could mention this when it gets to talking about BLCR, 
or C/R in general.

Additionally, in general when configuring components, it would be nice in the 
config logs if there was a way to get more details about the tests (and why 
they failed) than just "can compile...no".  This may require more invasive 
changes - not being super-knowledgeable about configure, I don't know how much 
work this would be.

Lastly, the standard Open MPI documentation (particularly the FAQ) could be 
updated in the C/R or BLCR sections to reflect the need for the "--with-ft=cr" 
argument.

Again, I really appreciate the assistance.

Re: [OMPI users] BLCR support not building on 1.5.3

[Joshua Hursey]

What version of BLCR are you using?

What other configure options are you passing to Open MPI? Specifically the 
configure test will always fail if '--with-ft=cr' is not specified - by default 
Open MPI will only build the BLCR component if C/R FT is requested by the user.

Can you send a zip'ed up config.log to the list, that might show something that 
the configure is missing?

Thanks,
Josh

On May 26, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Bill Johnstone wrote:

> Hello all.
> 
> I'm building 1.5.3 from source on a Debian Squeeze AMD64 system, and trying 
> to get BLCR support built-in.  I've installed all the packages that I think 
> should be relevant to BLCR support, including:
> 
> +blcr-dkms
> +libcr0
> +libcr-dev
> +blcr-util
> 
> I've also installed blcr-testuite .  I only run Open MPI's configure after 
> loading the blcr modules, and the tests in blcr-testsuite pass.  The relevant 
> headers seem to be in /usr/include and the relevant libraries in /usr/lib .
> 
> I've tried three different invocations of configure:
> 
> 1. No BLCR-related arguments.
> 
> Output snippet from configure:
> checking --with-blcr value... simple ok (unspecified)
> checking --with-blcr-libdir value... simple ok (unspecified)
> checking if MCA component crs:blcr can compile... no
> 
> 2. With --with-blcr=/usr only
> 
> Output snippet from configure:
> checking --with-blcr value... sanity check ok (/usr)
> checking --with-blcr-libdir value... simple ok (unspecified)
> configure: WARNING: BLCR support requested but not found.  Perhaps you need 
> to specify the location of the BLCR libraries.
> configure: error: Aborting.
> 
> 3. With --with-blcr-libdir=/usr/lib only
> 
> Output snippet from configure:
> checking --with-blcr value... simple ok (unspecified)
> checking --with-blcr-libdir value... sanity check ok (/usr/lib)
> checking if MCA component crs:blcr can compile... no
> 
> 
> config.log only seems to contain the output of whatever tests were run to 
> determine whether or not blcr support could be compiled, but I don't see any 
> way to get details on what code and compile invocation actually failed, in 
> order to get to the root of the problem.  I'm not a configure or m4 expert, 
> so I'm not sure how to go further in troubleshooting this.
> 
> Help would be much appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> ___
> users mailing list
> us...@open-mpi.org
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
> 

Re: [OMPI users] openmpi (1.2.8 or above) and Intel composer XE 2011 (aka 12.0)

[Gus Correa]

Eugene Loh wrote:

On 5/27/2011 4:32 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:

On May 27, 2011, at 4:30 AM, Robert Horton wrote:

To be clear, if you explicitly list which BTLs to use, OMPI will only
(try to) use exactly those and no others.

It might be worth putting the sm btl in the FAQ:

http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=openfabrics#ib-btl

Is this entry not clear enough?

http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=tuning#selecting-components
I think his point is that the example in the ib-btl entry would be more 
helpful as a template for usage if it added sm.  Why point users to a 
different FAQ entry (which we don't do anyhow) when three more 
characters ",sm" makes the ib-btl entry so much more helpful.

___
users mailing list
us...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users


Hi Jeff, list

I agree with Eugene and Robert.
By all means, please add ",sm" to "openib,self" in:

http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=openfabrics#ib-btl

I am yet to see a situation where you want to run with openib and self,
but exclude sm (except for testing, perhaps when memcpy is broken).

Maybe that is what led Salvatore Podda think there was a
"Law of Least Astonishment" behind the mca parameters syntax,
which would insert "sm" automatically to the other two btl,
which is not really the case.

Like Salvatore, I've got confused by the mca parameter
syntax in the past also.
My recollection is that Jeff wrote the second
FAQ to placate my whining in the list about
to sm or not to sm.

However, the second FAQ clarifies the mca parameter logic,
along with the role of the "^" clause, and IMHO should be kept there:

http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=tuning#selecting-components

My two cents,
Gus Correa

Re: [OMPI users] openmpi (1.2.8 or above) and Intel composer XE 2011 (aka 12.0)

[Eugene Loh]

On 5/27/2011 4:32 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:

On May 27, 2011, at 4:30 AM, Robert Horton wrote:

To be clear, if you explicitly list which BTLs to use, OMPI will only
(try to) use exactly those and no others.

It might be worth putting the sm btl in the FAQ:

http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=openfabrics#ib-btl

Is this entry not clear enough?

http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=tuning#selecting-components
I think his point is that the example in the ib-btl entry would be more 
helpful as a template for usage if it added sm.  Why point users to a 
different FAQ entry (which we don't do anyhow) when three more 
characters ",sm" makes the ib-btl entry so much more helpful.

Re: [OMPI users] openmpi (1.2.8 or above) and Intel composer XE 2011 (aka 12.0)

[Jeff Squyres]

On May 27, 2011, at 4:30 AM, Robert Horton wrote:

>> To be clear, if you explicitly list which BTLs to use, OMPI will only
>> (try to) use exactly those and no others.
> 
> It might be worth putting the sm btl in the FAQ:
> 
> http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=openfabrics#ib-btl

Is this entry not clear enough?

http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=tuning#selecting-components

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

Re: [OMPI users] openmpi (1.2.8 or above) and Intel composer XE 2011 (aka 12.0)

[Robert Horton]

On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:06 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're saying here.  There is a large difference
> between "--mca a,b,c" and "--mca a,b".
> 
> In the former, all 3 communication methods will be used (a, b, and c).
> In the latter, only 2 will be used (a and b).
> 
> To be clear, if you explicitly list which BTLs to use, OMPI will only
> (try to) use exactly those and no others.

It might be worth putting the sm btl in the FAQ:

http://www.open-mpi.org/faq/?category=openfabrics#ib-btl