Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Open MPI User's mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support
From: Maxime Boissonneault (maxime.boissonneault_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-15 07:41:12

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 they want and prefer to have everything installed, and have OMPI auto-select at run time exactly what to use based on the system on which it's running
> We've traditionally catered to the b) crowd, and made some not-very-easy-to-use capabilities for the a) crowd (i.e., you can manually disable each plugin you don't want to build via configure, but the syntax is fairly laborious).
> Ralph and I talked about the possibility of something analogous to "make menuconfig" for Linux kernels, where you get a menu-like system (UI TBD) to pick exactly what options you want/don't want. That will output a text config file that can be fed to configure, something along the lines of
> ./configure --only-build-exactly-this-stuff=file-output-from-menuconfig
> This idea is *very* rough; I anticipate that it will change quite a bit over time, and it'll take us a bit of time to design and implement it.
A menu-like system is not going to be very useful at least for us, since
we script all of our installations. Scripting a menu is not very handy.


> On May 14, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Bennet Fauber <bennet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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.boissonneault_at_[hidden]> 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 <rhc_at_[hidden]> 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 <rhc_at_[hidden]> 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)
>>>>>> <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> 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.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.
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Maxime Boissonneault
>>>>>>>> Analyste de calcul - Calcul Québec, Université Laval
>>>>>>>> Ph. D. en physique
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Jeff Squyres
>>>>>>> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>> For corporate legal information go to:
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> users mailing list
>>>>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> users mailing list
>>>> users_at_[hidden]
>>> --
>>> ---------------------------------
>>> Maxime Boissonneault
>>> Analyste de calcul - Calcul Québec, Université Laval
>>> Ph. D. en physique
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> users mailing list
>>> users_at_[hidden]
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users_at_[hidden]

Maxime Boissonneault
Analyste de calcul - Calcul Québec, Université Laval
Ph. D. en physique