[padb] Réf. : Re: Réf. : Re: Patch of support of Slurm + Openmpi Orte manager

[thipadin.seng-long at bull.net]

On 2/03/2009 01:53 PM Sylvain Jeaugey <sylvain.jeaugey at bull.net> wrote:
> I don't understand why this combination is being discussed ?

> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, thipadin.seng-long at bull.net wrote:
> > salloc srun -n 1 mpirun -bynode -n 8 my_prog

> The "srun -n 1" is useless and I doubt anyone would ever try to use it. 
Is 
> there a reason behind this ?

There is no reason behind this but Padb should support all kind of jobs.
"srun -n 1 mpirun" is equivalent to "mpirun ", I do admit.
But no one can prevent somebody to start jobs like this
since the syntax is correct,
So if some one start jobs like this, padb should be able to support.
That's the way to make padb rich. That's my point of view.
In term of source code there is just one line added by Ashley and it 
works.

Regards.
Thipadin. 






Sylvain Jeaugey <sylvain.jeaugey at bull.net>
12/03/2009 01:53 PM

 
        Pour :  thipadin.seng-long at bull.net
        cc :    Ashley Pittman <ashley at pittman.co.uk>, florence.vallee at bull.net, 
francois.wellenreiter at bull.net, padb-devel at pittman.org.uk, 
Sylvain.JEAUGEY at bull.net
        Objet : Re: Réf. : Re: [padb] Patch of support of Slurm + Openmpi Orte manager

Thipadin,

I don't understand why this combination is being discussed ?

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, thipadin.seng-long at bull.net wrote:
> salloc srun -n 1 mpirun -bynode -n 8 my_prog

The "srun -n 1" is useless and I doubt anyone would ever try to use it. Is 

there a reason behind this ?

Sylvain


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pittman.org.uk/pipermail/padb-devel_pittman.org.uk/attachments/20091204/6508ec8d/attachment.html>