Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update easyconfig files for MPICH and MVAPICH2 and their toolchains #2589

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Mar 16, 2016

Conversation

besserox
Copy link
Contributor

I would like to have an equivalent of the foss toolchain but with MVAPICH2 instead of OpenMPI.

  • I have updated the MVAPICH2 easyblock to be able to compile the latest versions of MPVACH2 (cf Update easyblocks for MPICH and MVAPICH2 easybuild-easyblocks#844)
  • I'm proposing a new toolchain named foss_mv2, same as foss except that OpenMPI is replaced by MVAPICH2. Feel free to propose another name that better suits you.
  • I have started discussing with MVAPICH2 team so they will keep their source tarballs available online in the future. I'd like to get this pull request merged first to demonstrate them how all this works.

Same as foss 2016a except that OpenMPI is replaced by MVAPICH2.
@hpcugentbot
Copy link
Contributor

Automatic reply from Jenkins: Can I test this?

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Feb 29, 2016

Jenkins: ok to test

@boegel boegel added this to the v2.7.0 milestone Feb 29, 2016
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
easyblock = 'Toolchain'

name = 'foss_mv2'
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

you're reinventing the existing gmvolf toolchain :)

the foss toolchain deliberately is not composed of the first letter of every component (like goolf, gmvolf, ...), to retain the freedom of changing some components at some point in time (e.g. change OpenMPI to MVAPICH2 in future release).

So, maybe stick to gmvolf as naming?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, it can stay gmvolf.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Feb 29, 2016

@besserox: thanks for reaching out to the MVAPICH2 maintainers to keep the source tarballs for older releases available, this has been pretty annoying...

@hpcugentbot
Copy link
Contributor

Easyconfigs unit test suite PASSed (see https://jenkins1.ugent.be/job/easybuild-easyconfigs-pr-builder/6666/console for more details).

This pull request is now ready for review/testing.

Please try and find someone who can tackle this; contact @boegel if you're not sure what to do.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Mar 1, 2016

I tested the MVAPICH2 easyconfigs included in here on top of easybuilders/easybuild-easyblocks#844 (with besserox/easybuild-easyblocks#2 included), works like a charm.

@hpcugentbot
Copy link
Contributor

Easyconfigs unit test suite FAILed.

See https://jenkins1.ugent.be/job/easybuild-easyconfigs-pr-builder/6693/console for more details.

Please fix the reported issues by pushing additional commits to the branch corresponding with this pull request; contact @boegel if you're not sure what to do.

@besserox
Copy link
Contributor Author

besserox commented Mar 1, 2016

Now this pull request contains:

  • new easyconfig files for MVAPICH2 and the toolchain gmvolf/2016a
  • new easyconfig files for MPICH and the toolchain gmpolf/2016a

Regarding the versioning: I suggest using <year>[ab] if the toolchain is using exactly the same software version as the equivalent foss one. Otherwise, it can just use a <year>.<month>.

@besserox
Copy link
Contributor Author

besserox commented Mar 1, 2016

I believe the testing errors should go away after the merge of easybuilders/easybuild-easyblocks#844

@hpcugentbot
Copy link
Contributor

Easyconfigs unit test suite FAILed.

See https://jenkins1.ugent.be/job/easybuild-easyconfigs-pr-builder/6698/console for more details.

Please fix the reported issues by pushing additional commits to the branch corresponding with this pull request; contact @boegel if you're not sure what to do.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Mar 1, 2016

@besserox: yes, the easyblock not being merged is the problem with the failing tests (since there's no MPICH easyblock yet)

@besserox
Copy link
Contributor Author

besserox commented Mar 1, 2016

Should we also update the easyconfig file m/MPICH2/MPICH2-1.1-GCC-4.8.1.eb?

@besserox besserox changed the title Updating MVAPICH2 easyconfig files and new FOSS-like toolchain with MVAPICH2 Update easyconfig files for MPICH and MVAPICH2 and their toolchains Mar 1, 2016
@hpcugentbot
Copy link
Contributor

Easyconfigs unit test suite FAILed.

See https://jenkins1.ugent.be/job/easybuild-easyconfigs-pr-builder/6700/console for more details.

Please fix the reported issues by pushing additional commits to the branch corresponding with this pull request; contact @boegel if you're not sure what to do.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Mar 1, 2016

@besserox: let's update MPICH2 in a separate PR?

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Mar 2, 2016

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 14 out of 14 (14 easyconfigs in this PR)
Linux centos linux 7.2.1511, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2660 v3 @ 2.60GHz, Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/fd1312097e0dc93e1499 for a full test report.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Mar 2, 2016

Jenkins: test this please

@hpcugentbot
Copy link
Contributor

Easyconfigs unit test suite PASSed (see https://jenkins1.ugent.be/job/easybuild-easyconfigs-pr-builder/6718/console for more details).

This pull request is now ready for review/testing.

Please try and find someone who can tackle this; contact @boegel if you're not sure what to do.

@hpcugentbot
Copy link
Contributor

Easyconfigs unit test suite PASSed (see https://jenkins1.ugent.be/job/easybuild-easyconfigs-pr-builder/7007/console for more details).

This pull request is now ready for review/testing.

Please try and find someone who can tackle this; contact @boegel if you're not sure what to do.

# For binutils, stick to http://wiki.osdev.org/Cross-Compiler_Successful_Builds
dependencies = [
('GCC', gccver),
('MVAPICH2', '2.2b', '', ('GCC', gccver)),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@besserox this should be MPICH?

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Mar 16, 2016

@besserox we usually include HPL easyconfigs for new toolchains, by means of testcase... Can you add an HPL easyconfig for both the new gmpolf and gmvolf toolchain definitions?

@besserox
Copy link
Contributor Author

@boegel Fixed

@hpcugentbot
Copy link
Contributor

Easyconfigs unit test suite PASSed (see https://jenkins1.ugent.be/job/easybuild-easyconfigs-pr-builder/7146/console for more details).

This pull request is now ready for review/testing.

Please try and find someone who can tackle this; contact @boegel if you're not sure what to do.

@hpcugentbot
Copy link
Contributor

Easyconfigs unit test suite PASSed (see https://jenkins1.ugent.be/job/easybuild-easyconfigs-pr-builder/7147/console for more details).

This pull request is now ready for review/testing.

Please try and find someone who can tackle this; contact @boegel if you're not sure what to do.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Mar 16, 2016

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 16 out of 16 (16 easyconfigs in this PR)
node2159.delcatty.os - Linux SL 6.7, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670 0 @ 2.60GHz, Python 2.6.6
See https://gist.github.com/3679705cf3afbc4145ec for a full test report.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Mar 16, 2016

Good to go, thanks @besserox!

boegel added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 16, 2016
Update easyconfig files for MPICH and MVAPICH2 and their toolchains
@boegel boegel merged commit 6a1cfd7 into easybuilders:develop Mar 16, 2016
@besserox besserox deleted the mvapich2 branch March 16, 2016 17:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants