Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-16 Thread Gus Correa
.org] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 2:07 PM To: Open MPI Users Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support On May 16, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Fabricio Cannini <fcann...@gmail.com<mailto:fcann...@gmail.com>> wrote: Em 16-05-2014 10:06, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) escreveu: On Ma

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support (or is this about cmake now?)

2014-05-16 Thread Elken, Tom
all. I do not want to put an > >> extra > requirement on my users. Nor do I want something as simple-minded as CMake. > autotools works great for me. > >> > >> -Nathan > >> > >> > >> From: users [u

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support (or is this about cmake now?)

2014-05-16 Thread John Cary
: users [users-boun...@open-mpi.org] on behalf of Ralph Castain [r...@open-mpi.org] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 2:07 PM To: Open MPI Users Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support On May 16, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Fabricio Cannini <fcann...@gmail.com<mailto:fcann...@gmail.com>>

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-16 Thread Fabricio Cannini
Em 16-05-2014 17:07, Ralph Castain escreveu: FWIW, simply for my own curiosity's sake, if someone could confirm deny whether cmake: 1. Supports the following compiler suites: GNU (that's a given, I assume), Clang, OS X native (which is variants of GNU and Clang), Absoft, PGI, Intel, Cray,

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-16 Thread Martin Siegert
mething as simple-minded as CMake. > autotools works great for me. > > -Nathan > > > From: users [users-boun...@open-mpi.org] on behalf of Ralph Castain > [r...@open-mpi.org] > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 2:07 PM > To: Open MPI Users &

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-16 Thread Hjelm, Nathan T
. autotools works great for me. -Nathan From: users [users-boun...@open-mpi.org] on behalf of Ralph Castain [r...@open-mpi.org] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 2:07 PM To: Open MPI Users Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support On May 16, 2014

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-16 Thread Ralph Castain
On May 16, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Fabricio Cannini wrote: > Em 16-05-2014 10:06, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) escreveu: >> On May 15, 2014, at 8:00 PM, Fabricio Cannini >> wrote: >> Nobody is disagreeing that one could find a way to make CMake work -

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-16 Thread Fabricio Cannini
Em 16-05-2014 10:06, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) escreveu: On May 15, 2014, at 8:00 PM, Fabricio Cannini wrote: Nobody is disagreeing that one could find a way to make CMake work - all we are saying is that (a) CMake has issues too, just like autotools, and (b) we have yet to

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-16 Thread Maxime Boissonneault
Le 2014-05-16 09:06, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) a écrit : On May 15, 2014, at 8:00 PM, Fabricio Cannini wrote: Nobody is disagreeing that one could find a way to make CMake work - all we are saying is that (a) CMake has issues too, just like autotools, and (b) we have yet

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-16 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
On May 15, 2014, at 8:00 PM, Fabricio Cannini wrote: >> Nobody is disagreeing that one could find a way to make CMake work - all we >> are saying is that (a) CMake has issues too, just like autotools, and (b) we >> have yet to see a compelling reason to undertake the

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Fabricio Cannini
Em 15-05-2014 20:48, Ralph Castain escreveu: Nobody is disagreeing that one could find a way to make CMake work - all we are saying is that (a) CMake has issues too, just like autotools, and (b) we have yet to see a compelling reason to undertake the transition...which would have to be a

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Ralph Castain
Nobody is disagreeing that one could find a way to make CMake work - all we are saying is that (a) CMake has issues too, just like autotools, and (b) we have yet to see a compelling reason to undertake the transition...which would have to be a *very* compelling one. On May 15, 2014, at 4:45

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Fabricio Cannini
Em 15-05-2014 20:15, Maxime Boissonneault escreveu: Le 2014-05-15 18:27, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) a écrit : On May 15, 2014, at 6:14 PM, Fabricio Cannini wrote: Alright, but now I'm curious as to why you decided against it. Could please elaborate on it a bit ? OMPI has a

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Ralph Castain
On May 15, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Maxime Boissonneault wrote: > Le 2014-05-15 18:27, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) a écrit : >> On May 15, 2014, at 6:14 PM, Fabricio Cannini wrote: >> >>> Alright, but now I'm curious as to why you decided

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Maxime Boissonneault
Le 2014-05-15 18:27, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) a écrit : On May 15, 2014, at 6:14 PM, Fabricio Cannini wrote: Alright, but now I'm curious as to why you decided against it. Could please elaborate on it a bit ? OMPI has a long, deep history with the GNU Autotools. It's a

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
On May 15, 2014, at 6:14 PM, Fabricio Cannini wrote: > Alright, but now I'm curious as to why you decided against it. > Could please elaborate on it a bit ? OMPI has a long, deep history with the GNU Autotools. It's a very long, complicated story, but the high points are:

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Fabricio Cannini
Em 15-05-2014 18:40, Ralph Castain escreveu: On May 15, 2014, at 2:34 PM, Fabricio Cannini wrote: Em 15-05-2014 07:29, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) escreveu: I think Ralph's email summed it up pretty well -- we unfortunately have (at least) two distinct groups of people who

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Ralph Castain
On May 15, 2014, at 2:34 PM, Fabricio Cannini wrote: > Em 15-05-2014 07:29, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) escreveu: >> I think Ralph's email summed it up pretty well -- we unfortunately have (at >> least) two distinct groups of people who install OMPI: >> >> a) those who know

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Nathan Hjelm
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 06:34:20PM -0300, Fabricio Cannini wrote: > Em 15-05-2014 07:29, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) escreveu: > >I think Ralph's email summed it up pretty well -- we unfortunately have (at > >least) two distinct groups of people who install OMPI: > > > >a) those who know exactly what

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Maxime Boissonneault
Please allow me to chip in my $0.02 and suggest to not reinvent the wheel, but instead consider to migrate the build system to cmake : http://www.cmake.org/ I agree that menu-wise, CMake does a pretty good job with ccmake, and is much, much easier to create than autoconf/automake/m4 stuff

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Fabricio Cannini
Em 15-05-2014 07:29, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) escreveu: I think Ralph's email summed it up pretty well -- we unfortunately have (at least) two distinct groups of people who install OMPI: a) those who know exactly what they want and don't want anything else b) those who don't know exactly what

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Ralph Castain
Hi Gus The issue is that you have to work thru all the various components (leafing thru the code base) to construct a list of all the things you *don't* want to build. By default, we build *everything*, so there is no current method to simply "build only what I want". For those building

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Gus Correa
Hi List Sorry, but I confess I am having a hard time to understand all the fuss about this. At least in OMPI 1.6.5 there are already two configure options that just knock out support for slurm and loadleveler if they are set to "no", hopefully for the joy of everybody that want lean and mean

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
These are all good points -- thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear: my point about the menu system was to generate file that could be used for subsequent installs, very specifically targeted at those who want/need scriptable installations. One possible scenario could be: you download

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Noam Bernstein
I’m not sure how this would apply to other options, but for the scheduler, what about no scheduler-related options defaults to everything enabled (like before), but having any explicit scheduler enable option disables by default all the other schedulers? Multiple explicit enable options would

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Maxime Boissonneault
A file would do the trick, but from my experience of building programs, I always prefer configure options. Maybe just an option --disable-optional that disables anything that is optional and non-explicitely requested. Maxime Le 2014-05-15 08:22, Bennet Fauber a écrit : Would a separate file

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Bennet Fauber
Would a separate file that contains each scheduler option and is included by configure do the trick? It might read include-slurm=YES include-torque=YES etc. If all options are set to default to YES, then the people who want no options are satisfied, but those of us who would like to change the

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Maxime Boissonneault
Le 2014-05-15 06:29, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) a écrit : I think Ralph's email summed it up pretty well -- we unfortunately have (at least) two distinct groups of people who install OMPI: a) those who know exactly what they want and don't want anything else b) those who don't know exactly what

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-15 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
I think Ralph's email summed it up pretty well -- we unfortunately have (at least) two distinct groups of people who install OMPI: a) those who know exactly what they want and don't want anything else b) those who don't know exactly what they want and prefer to have everything installed, and

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-14 Thread Bennet Fauber
I think Maxime's suggestion is sane and reasonable. Just in case you're taking ha'penny's worth from the groundlings. I think I would prefer not to have capability included that we won't use. -- bennet On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Maxime Boissonneault

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-14 Thread Ralph Castain
Good point - will see what we can do about it. On May 14, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Maxime Boissonneault wrote: > For the scheduler issue, I would be happy with something like, if I ask for > support for X, disable support for Y, Z and W. I am assuming that very

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-14 Thread Maxime Boissonneault
For the scheduler issue, I would be happy with something like, if I ask for support for X, disable support for Y, Z and W. I am assuming that very rarely will someone use more than one scheduler. Maxime Le 2014-05-14 19:09, Ralph Castain a écrit : Jeff and I have talked about this and are

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-14 Thread Ralph Castain
Jeff and I have talked about this and are approaching a compromise. Still more thinking to do, perhaps providing new configure options to "only build what I ask for" and/or a tool to support a menu-driven selection of what to build - as opposed to today's "build everything you don't tell me to

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-14 Thread Ralph Castain
On May 14, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > On May 14, 2014, at 6:09 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: > >> FWIW: I believe we no longer build the slurm support by default, though I'd >> have to check to be sure. The intent is definitely not to

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-14 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
On May 14, 2014, at 6:09 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: > FWIW: I believe we no longer build the slurm support by default, though I'd > have to check to be sure. The intent is definitely not to do so. The srun-based support builds by default. I like it that way. :-) PMI-based

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-14 Thread Ralph Castain
Indeed, a quick review indicates that the new policy for scheduler support was not uniformly applied. I'll update it. To reiterate: we will only build support for a scheduler if the user specifically requests it. We did this because we are increasingly seeing distros include header support for

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-14 Thread Ralph Castain
FWIW: I believe we no longer build the slurm support by default, though I'd have to check to be sure. The intent is definitely not to do so. The plan we adjusted to a while back was to *only* build support for schedulers upon request. Can't swear that they are all correctly updated, but that

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-14 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
Here's a bit of our rational, from the README file: Note that for many of Open MPI's --with- options, Open MPI will, by default, search for header files and/or libraries for . If the relevant files are found, Open MPI will built support for ; if they are not found, Open MPI will

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-14 Thread Maxime Boissonneault
Hi Gus, Oh, I know that, what I am refering to is that slurm and loadleveler support are enabled by default, and it seems that if we're using Torque/Moab, we have no use for slurm and loadleveler support. My point is not that it is hard to compile it with torque support, my point is that it

Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-14 Thread Gus Correa
On 05/14/2014 04:25 PM, Maxime Boissonneault wrote: Hi, I was compiling OpenMPI 1.8.1 today and I noticed that pretty much every single scheduler has its support enabled by default at configure (except the one I need, which is Torque). Is there a reason for that ? Why not have a single scheduler

[OMPI users] Question about scheduler support

2014-05-14 Thread Maxime Boissonneault
Hi, I was compiling OpenMPI 1.8.1 today and I noticed that pretty much every single scheduler has its support enabled by default at configure (except the one I need, which is Torque). Is there a reason for that ? Why not have a single scheduler enabled and require to specify it at configure