Committed in https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/mtt/changeset/1243.
On Nov 4, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
Guys -- any thoughts on this hg tree / the concept? If I don't hear
anything back within the next day or so, I'm inclined to put this back
into the trunk (I could use this
Guys -- any thoughts on this hg tree / the concept? If I don't hear
anything back within the next day or so, I'm inclined to put this back
into the trunk (I could use this stuff in my MTT runs :-) ).
Thanks!
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Ethan Mallove wrote:
http://www.open-mpi.org/hg/hgwebdir.cgi/jsquyres/mtt-fast-scratch/
What do you guys think?
I just ran this, and it seemed to work fine:
$ client/mtt --fast-scratch /tmp/mtt-jeff-fast-scratch \
--scratch /workspace/mtt-jeff-
On Thu, Oct/30/2008 06:04:06PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Tim and I discussed this on the phone the other day and then I talked about
> it more with Ethan. After all this discussion, I committed a variant of
> Tim's patch into an HG for review before putting it back on the SVN trunk:
>
> http://
Tim and I discussed this on the phone the other day and then I talked
about it more with Ethan. After all this discussion, I committed a
variant of Tim's patch into an HG for review before putting it back on
the SVN trunk:
http://www.open-mpi.org/hg/hgwebdir.cgi/jsquyres/mtt-fast-scrat
Excellent points.
What about a slightly different approach that would allow us to be
exactly specific?
--scratch=dir1[,dir2[,dir3[,...]]]
And then in the INI file, have fields that indicate which scratch dir
you want them to use. For example, the fact that the OMPI MPI Install
plugin do
I've also been thinking about this a bit more, and although
having the name match the INI section name has some appeal,
I ultimately think the best name is: --mpi-build-scratch, since
that is what it does. As Ethan mentioned, the actual MPI
install goes into --scratch. And on the other side of it
On Thu, Sep/18/2008 05:35:13PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Ethan Mallove wrote:
>
>>> Ah, yeah, ok, now I see why you wouldl call it --mpi-install-scratch, so
>>> that it matches the MTT ini section name. Sure, that works for me.
>>
>> Since this does seem like a feature t
On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Ethan Mallove wrote:
Ah, yeah, ok, now I see why you wouldl call it --mpi-install-
scratch, so
that it matches the MTT ini section name. Sure, that works for me.
Since this does seem like a feature that should eventually
propogate to all the other phases (except
On Thu, Sep/18/2008 10:11:19AM, Tim Mattox wrote:
> I Guess I should comment on Jeff's comments too.
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Ethan Mallove wrote:
> >
> >> What happens if one uses --local-scratch, but leaves out the
> >> --scratch
On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Tim Mattox wrote:
Can anyone check it quick for vpath builds?
I'll try to give it a whirl in a bit.
Just a FYI, I've already run into the "downside" I mentioned once
this week.
I had to rerun my MTT to get access to the build directory, since it
was on /tmp on
I Guess I should comment on Jeff's comments too.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Ethan Mallove wrote:
>
>> What happens if one uses --local-scratch, but leaves out the
>> --scratch option? In this case, I think MTT should assume
>> --scratch is
OK, so how about calling it --mpi-build-scratch?
Once we get a consensus on what to call it, I can commit the patch to svn.
Can anyone check it quick for vpath builds?
Just a FYI, I've already run into the "downside" I mentioned once this week.
I had to rerun my MTT to get access to the build dir
Patch looks good. Please also update the CHANGES file (this file
reflects bullets for things that have happened since the core testers
branch).
On Sep 15, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Tim Mattox wrote:
Hello,
Attached is a patchfile for the mtt trunk that adds a
--local-scratch
option to client/mtt
On Sep 16, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Ethan Mallove wrote:
What happens if one uses --local-scratch, but leaves out the
--scratch option? In this case, I think MTT should assume
--scratch is the same as --local-scratch.
In this case, my $0.02 is that it should be an error. --scratch
implies a --loc
On Tue, Sep/16/2008 12:07:31PM, Ethan Mallove wrote:
> Nice! A few thoughts ...
>
> What happens if one uses --local-scratch, but leaves out the
> --scratch option? In this case, I think MTT should assume
> --scratch is the same as --local-scratch.
>
> Could the "local" in --local-scratch ever b
Nice! A few thoughts ...
What happens if one uses --local-scratch, but leaves out the
--scratch option? In this case, I think MTT should assume
--scratch is the same as --local-scratch.
Could the "local" in --local-scratch ever be misleading?
Couldn't a user ever use a mounted filesystem that's
Hello,
Attached is a patchfile for the mtt trunk that adds a
--local-scratch
option to client/mtt. You can also specify something like
this in your [MTT] ini section:
local_scratch = &shell("echo /tmp/`whoami`_mtt")
This local-scratch directory is then used for part of the --mpi-install
phase to
18 matches
Mail list logo
