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.boissonneault_at_[hidden]> 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.
> Le 2014-05-14 16:51, Gus Correa a écrit :
>> On 05/14/2014 04:25 PM, Maxime Boissonneault wrote:
>>> 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 ?
>>> 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):
>> My two cents,
>> Gus Correa
>> users mailing list
> Maxime Boissonneault
> Analyste de calcul - Calcul Québec, Université Laval
> Ph. D. en physique
> users mailing list
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/