Re: [easybuild] gaussian build with eb

PR 4247 binary install only. On 03/03/2017 07:57 AM, Åke Sandgren wrote: > Yes, i have both. > Did i forget to push them too? > > On 03/03/2017 05:08 AM, Siddiqui, Shahzeb wrote: >> Hello, >> >> >> >> Anyone have a Gaussian g16 or g09 build with Easybuild. I can’t seem to >> find any

Re: [easybuild] gaussian build with eb

Yes, i have both. Did i forget to push them too? On 03/03/2017 05:08 AM, Siddiqui, Shahzeb wrote: > Hello, > > > > Anyone have a Gaussian g16 or g09 build with Easybuild. I can’t seem to > find any easyconfig in the repo or in the PR. > > > > Regards, > > > > Shahzeb Siddiqui > > HPC

[easybuild] gaussian build with eb

Hello, Anyone have a Gaussian g16 or g09 build with Easybuild. I can't seem to find any easyconfig in the repo or in the PR. Regards, Shahzeb Siddiqui HPC Linux Engineer B2220-447.2 Groton, CT

Re: [easybuild] FOSS vs CUDA

I don't think anyone feels very strongly about foss ideologically, it is just a name that is better than goolf. The bioinfo people tend to use it for ease of support as much of the software is built with it already and absolute best performance isn't always more important than getting the

Re: [easybuild] FOSS vs CUDA

Hi David, Understood. We also go for minimal toolchains. We're however doing mostly dummy -> GCCcore -> iccifort -> iompi -> iomkl -> iomklc and dummy -> GCCcore -> gcc -> gompi -> gomkl -> gomklc Maxime On 17-03-02 18:38, Vanzo, Davide wrote: Maxime, your point it totally legitimate. My

Re: [easybuild] FOSS vs CUDA

Maxime, your point it totally legitimate. My approach is less about philosophy and more about practicality. We picked the foss toolchain instead of the goolf toolchain because of its more collaborative nature and scheduled release. The problem is that if we now start using a goolfc toolchain,

[easybuild] FOSS vs CUDA

Hi, I've seen a couple emails about CUDA recently, and I was a bit surprised to see work done about FOSS and CUDA. Isn't the whole point of FOSS to be free and open source ? CUDA is not open source. Won't die-hard fan of FOSS object to having CUDA in a FOSS toolchain ? I personally don't

Re: [easybuild] sanity check issue CUDA with GCC

Shahzeb, I had a similar error a few days ago. It is probably somewhere in the build log. Without any patching, CUDA refuses to install if your gcc is too new (for CUDA 7.5 it can't be newer than gcc 4.8). For cuda and gcc versions in one place see here

[easybuild] sanity check issue CUDA with GCC

Hello, I am puzzled why I am running into a issue when rebuilding CUDA with GCC support. It works fine when building with dummy toolchain. hpcswadm@hpcv18$eb CUDA-7.5.18-GCC-6.2.0.eb -r .. == temporary log file in case of crash /tmp/eb-ds88em/easybuild-YiC3Kf.log == resolving dependencies ...

Re: [easybuild] MODULEPATH issue when supporting intel and intelcuda toolchain concurrently

At JSC we handle this issue by treating CUDA as a simple dependency of packages built at the compiler level, we only incorporate it into a toolchain when we use a CUDA-aware MPI (which means that the MODULEPATH expansion only happens once rather than twice, once for CUDA and once for MPI).

Re: [easybuild] MODULEPATH issue when supporting intel and intelcuda toolchain concurrently

Dear Shahzeb, I think this is probably the same (or at least related to the) issue that is being discussed in https://github.com/hpcugent/easybuild-framework/pull/2135 It also exposes one of the problems of a HMNS, the potential non-uniqueness of module names. The problem with not building

[easybuild] MODULEPATH issue when supporting intel and intelcuda toolchain concurrently

Hello, I seem to notice an issue when building modules using HierarchicalNamingScheme when building out the intel and intelcuda toolchains. I notice that MODULEPATH is set for icc and ifort for intel directory. This is correct when setting up intel toolchain. hpcswadm@hpcv18$grep -iR