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 <maxime.boissonnea...@calculquebec.ca> 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 > 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 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 >> not-build" >> >> Tough set of compromises as it depends on the target audience. Sys admins >> prefer the "build only what I say", while users (who frequently aren't that >> familiar with the inners of a system) prefer the "build all" mentality. >> >> >> On May 14, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: >> >>> 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 various schedulers, and so just finding >>> the required headers isn't enough to know that the scheduler is intended for >>> use. So we wind up building a bunch of useless modules. >>> >>> >>> On May 14, 2014, at 3:09 PM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> 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 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 was the intent. >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 14, 2014, at 2:52 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) >>>> <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Here's a bit of our rational, from the README file: >>>>> >>>>> Note that for many of Open MPI's --with-<foo> options, Open MPI will, >>>>> by default, search for header files and/or libraries for <foo>. If >>>>> the relevant files are found, Open MPI will built support for <foo>; >>>>> if they are not found, Open MPI will skip building support for <foo>. >>>>> However, if you specify --with-<foo> on the configure command line >>>>> and >>>>> Open MPI is unable to find relevant support for <foo>, configure will >>>>> assume that it was unable to provide a feature that was specifically >>>>> requested and will abort so that a human can resolve out the issue. >>>>> >>>>> In some cases, we don't need header or library files. For example, >>>>> with SLURM and LSF, our native support is actually just fork/exec'ing the >>>>> SLURM/LSF executables under the covers (e.g., as opposed to using >>>>> rsh/ssh). >>>>> So we can basically *always* build them. So we do. >>>>> >>>>> In general, OMPI builds support for everything that it can find on the >>>>> rationale that a) we can't know ahead of time exactly what people want, >>>>> and >>>>> b) most people want to just "./configure && make -j 32 install" and be >>>>> done >>>>> with it -- so build as much as possible. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 14, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Maxime Boissonneault >>>>> <maxime.boissonnea...@calculquebec.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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 is compiling support for many schedulers while I'm >>>>>> rather >>>>>> convinced that very few sites actually use multiple schedulers at the >>>>>> same >>>>>> time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Maxime >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 2014-05-14 16:51, Gus Correa a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 enabled and require to specify it at >>>>>>>> configure >>>>>>>> time ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is there any reason for me to build with loadlever or slurm if we're >>>>>>>> using torque ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maxime Boisssonneault >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Maxime >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I haven't tried 1.8.1 yet. >>>>>>> However, for all previous versions of OMPI I tried, up to 1.6.5, >>>>>>> all it took to configure it with Torque support was to point >>>>>>> configure >>>>>>> to the Torque installation directory (which is non-standard in my >>>>>>> case): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --with-tm=/opt/torque/bla/bla >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My two cents, >>>>>>> Gus Correa >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> users mailing list >>>>>>> us...@open-mpi.org >>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> --------------------------------- >>>>>> Maxime Boissonneault >>>>>> Analyste de calcul - Calcul Québec, Université Laval >>>>>> Ph. D. en physique >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> users mailing list >>>>>> us...@open-mpi.org >>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jeff Squyres >>>>> jsquy...@cisco.com >>>>> For corporate legal information go to: >>>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> users mailing list >>>>> us...@open-mpi.org >>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >> >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> us...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > > > > -- > --------------------------------- > Maxime Boissonneault > Analyste de calcul - Calcul Québec, Université Laval > Ph. D. en physique > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
