[easybuild] RE: [Lmod-users] Getting Scientific Software Installed BoF at SC15
Hi, y'all, Alas, I was not present at SC15 nor the BOF. Do you think the guix package manager deserves a place at this table? (http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/) I'm surprised to find it missing from the fray. Or am I missing the point? Cheers, Malcolm Cook > -Original Message- > From: Kenneth Hoste [mailto:kenneth.ho...@ugent.be] > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:43 PM > To: EasyBuild > Cc: Todd Gamblin ; Ewan Higgs ; > lmod-users ; Helmar Burkhart > > Subject: [Lmod-users] Getting Scientific Software Installed BoF at SC15 > > Hi all, > > All materials from the "Getting Scientific Software Installed" BoF > session at SC15 are now available at > https://github.com/hpcugent/easybuild/wiki/SC15-BoF-session . > > The session included lightning talks on Lmod, EasyBuild and Spack + an > interactive survey & discussion. > > The session was really well attended, with about 120 people finishing > the interactive survey we ran during the 2nd half of the session. > > Thank you to everyone who joined the BoF! > > As a reminder, related sessions this week at SC15 include: > > * Tue Nov 17th - 3.30pm (room 13B): BoF session on Performance > Reproducibility in HPC > (http://sc15.supercomputing.org/schedule/event_detail?evid=bof145) > * Wed Nov 18th - 11.30am (room 18AB): Spack paper presentation > (http://sc15.supercomputing.org/schedule/event_detail?evid=pap264) > * Wed Nov 18th - 2pm: Lmod hands-on tutorial @ TACC booth > > > regards, > > Kenneth > > -- > ___ > Lmod-users mailing list > lmod-us...@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmod-users
RE: [easybuild] easybuild new user experience
Hi Fotis & Stuart,
>> What do people do/recommend for multiple OS environments? We are
>> currently CentOS 6 but will eventually move to C7. I'm thinking I
>> will want a separate application tree for each OS (/projects/app-c6
>> and /projects/app-c7).
>>
>> How do people deal with software with frequent updates (java) or
>> security issues? Do you rebuild and remove old packages?
>
>You may be able to handle both of the above needs,
>by using the concept of buildsets, mentioned in p. over here:
>https://archive.fosdem.org/2014/schedule/event/hpc_devroom_hpcbios/attachments/slides/491/export/events/attachments/hpc_
>devroom_hpcbios/slides/491/FOSDEM14_HPC_devroom_09_HPC_BIOS.pdf
>
>In principle, the idea is that you create self-contained directory areas
>with complete build trees, including modules, at a given point in time.
>I've calling them /opt/apps/HPCBIOS.MMDD but any kind of tag will just do.
>
>Then you might create symlinks like:
> /opt/apps/sandybridge -> /opt/apps/*.MMDD
>
>I used a dubious example name above but you get the idea.
Fotis, I note your example name, "sandybridge", apparently encoded an intel
processor microarchitecture, NOT the name of a linux distribution (such as c6
or c7 for releases of centOS, as proposed). I'm trying to understand the
implications of possibly needing to support a heterogeneous environment having
multiple CentOS versions (6.5 and 7.x) on multiple core types (sandybridge) and
would appreciate any more clarity here. Are you possibly suggesting that
buildsets for each combination of microprocessor and OS version might be
appropriate
(provoking visions of /opt/apps/{sandybridge,Nehalem}/centOS{6,7}/MMDD )
??
~Malcolm
[easybuild] advice sought re: EB 2.x and EB 1.x and Lmod/EB install observations
Hi,
I am currently learning EasyBuild/Lmod and strategizing for deployment to a
common network shared mountpoint, say $HPCBC, for use by about half-dozen HPC
linux running CentOS7.
I wonder if there is any information that would help me with pros/cons on
waiting for EB 2.x before deployment, such as:
intended scope of changes
intended backward compatibility (should all existing modules 'just
work')
ETA for first release intended for general availability (non-beta)
Also, I am somewhat struggling with my EB 1.x evaluation/testing (also on
CentOS7) and wonder about relative value of using the various installation
methods, being
1) python bootstrap_eb.py $HPCBC/easybuild # currently yields version 1.16.1
2) pip install --install-option "--prefix=${HPCBC}/EasyBuild" easybuild
3)
> pip install --install-option "--prefix=1.16.1" easybuild
b) pip install --install-option "--prefix=1.16.1" easybuild
My impression is that the advantage of using the bootstrap procedure is that it
builds a 'module' file. Is there more that I am missing?
Finally, I have the following observations about the install that I hope you
find worthy additions to your installation documentation:
xmlrunner is python module optionally used by eb boostrap unit test
which allows them to run faster! NB - in my hands the test results are
DIFFERENT if present - perhaps a "bad thing". Can be installed with: `pip
install xmlrunner` -- add to
http://easybuild.readthedocs.org/en/latest/Installation.html#optional-dependencies
tcl need be installed (in my experience) (regardless of whether Tcl/C
environment modules are to be used - i.e. even if only Lmod is to be used) -
add to http://easybuild.readthedocs.org/en/latest/Installation.html#requirements
if Lua is built and installed in a non standard location, LUA_ROOT
should be redefined accordingly, for example:
> sed -i '/#define LUA_ROOT/s:/usr/local/:${INSTALL_TOP}/:'
src/luaconf.h
Thanks,
Malcolm
~ Malcolm Cook
Computational Biology - Stowers Institute for Medical Research - Kansas City
[easybuild] advice sought re: EB 2.x and EB 1.x and Lmod/EB install observations
Hi,
I am currently learning EasyBuild/Lmod and strategizing for deployment to a
common network shared mountpoint, say $HPCBC, for use by about half-dozen HPC
linux running CentOS7.
I wonder if there is any information that would help me with pros/cons on
waiting for EB 2.x before deployment, such as:
intended scope of changes
intended backward compatibility (should all existing modules
'just work')
ETA for first release intended for general availability
(non-beta)
Also, I am somewhat struggling with my EB 1.x evaluation/testing (also on
CentOS7) and wonder about relative value of using the various installation
methods, being
1) python bootstrap_eb.py $HPCBC/easybuild # currently yields version 1.16.1
2) pip install --install-option "--prefix=${HPCBC}/EasyBuild" easybuild
3)
> pip install --install-option "--prefix=1.16.1" easybuild
b) pip install --install-option "--prefix=1.16.1" easybuild
My impression is that the advantage of using the bootstrap procedure is that it
builds a 'module' file. Is there more that I am missing?
Finally, I have the following observations about the install that I hope you
find worthy additions to your installation documentation:
xmlrunner is python module optionally used by eb boostrap unit
test which allows them to run faster! NB - in my hands the test results are
DIFFERENT if present - perhaps a "bad thing". Can be installed with: `pip
install xmlrunner` -- add to
http://easybuild.readthedocs.org/en/latest/Installation.html#optional-dependencies
tcl need be installed (in my experience) (regardless of whether
Tcl/C environment modules are to be used - i.e. even if only Lmod is to be
used) - add to
http://easybuild.readthedocs.org/en/latest/Installation.html#requirements
if Lua is built and installed in a non standard location,
LUA_ROOT should be redefined accordingly, for example:
> sed -i '/#define
LUA_ROOT/s:/usr/local/:${INSTALL_TOP}/:' src/luaconf.h
Thanks,
Malcolm
python-pip
~ Malcolm Cook
Computational Biology - Stowers Institute for Medical Research - Kansas City
