[Bioclusters] LSF 4.2 w/ Redhat 7.2 (2.4.X kernel with glibc2.2) install problem

Kristian Vlahovicek bioclusters@bioinformatics.org
Sun, 5 May 2002 14:09:58 +0200


Hey Ron,

I might not be the right person to answer your questions, as we are really
very lightweight users of batch queuing systems - most of our parallel work
comes down to writing MPI-based software. I can tell you that SGE definitely
has a plus over the LSF due to the interfaces problem with LSF install :) As
far as I know (as I'm not the one who actually installed and does the admin)
we didn't have such problems with SGE. For the rest, so far the SGE has been
performing quite satisfactory. As it was mentioned, more extensive logging
would definitely be welcome. wrt the commercial support - this is definitely
not an issue in our case.

Kristian

-----Original Message-----
From: bioclusters-admin@bioinformatics.org
[mailto:bioclusters-admin@bioinformatics.org]On Behalf Of Ron Chen
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:55
To: bioclusters@bioinformatics.org
Subject: Re: [Bioclusters] LSF 4.2 w/ Redhat 7.2 (2.4.X kernel with
glibc2.2) install problem


Hi Kristian,

Can you answer my questions about LSF vs SGE?

1) which one do you think is easier to install/use?

2) does SGE really have lots of admin overhead, and in
which area?

3) which features do you think is missing in SGE that
you think is important?

(I hope to improve SGE so that people who don't have
much money can get a free, powerful batch system)

If it is commerical support issues, which most
open-source software is having, SGE has Sun providing
support for Solaris, and Sun partners providing
support for other OSes--

http://wwws.sun.com/software/gridware/partners/index.html

I know a lot of people upset with PBS switch to SGE,
and in some cases, LSF users switching to SGE as well,
so I really want to understand what makes a free,
opensource software less attractive, and the way to
improve it.

-Ron

--- Kristian Vlahovicek <kristian@icgeb.trieste.it>
wrote:
> Hey Chris,
>
> We are currently in a process of evaluating LSF on
> our 16x1.3GHz Athlons
> running RH 7.2 and glibc 2.2. We have been running
> SGE for some time now
> and it was quite sufficient for what we needed, but
> we got the possibility
> to buy LSF at a very reasonable price so we decided
> to give it a try :)
>
> WRT the installation, it went smoothly, no problems
> with glibc. However,
> we did not manage to get the daemons to bind to a
> correct interface on
> master. We migt be missing something (anyone with
> more experience with LSF
> administration is welcome to suggest the solution),
> or could this be the
> glibc incompatibility? OTOH, workers seem to be
> working quite fine...
>
> basically, our master has 2 interfaces, eth0
> (external net - public IP)
> and eth1 (cluster net - private IP), each named
> differently. when doing
> hostsetup after install, it queries the hostname on
> the master and gets
> the public one and a) either it complains about host
> not being listed in
> the servers list (in case we put the private iface
> name) or b) sets
> everything up without complaints, but then master
> sees only itself and the
> rest of the cluster see each other but not the
> master. (lshosts and
> bhosts). Any ideas? As I said, we just started the
> eval, so there might be
> a trivial solution to this burried somewhere in the
> documentation, but the
> out-of-the-box thing does not work. Tried to see if
> there were any
> switches to the lim daemon to direct it to the
> proper interface, but it
> seems not...
>
> Kristian
>
> --
> Dr. sc. Kristian Vlahovicek
> Protein structure & bioinformatics      Phone:  +39
> 0403757354
> ICGEB                                   Fax:    +39
> 040226555
> Padriciano 99                           E-mail:
> kristian@icgeb.trieste.it
> Trieste 34012 Italy                     Web:
> http://www.icgeb.trieste.it/dna
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Chris Dagdigian wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > I've got a Platform LSF 4.2 distro that is bombing
> out during the
> > install process. I've tracked the problem down to
> the install script not
> > being able to determine the correct set of system
> binaries it is
> > supposed to install.
> >
> > The cluster is up-to-date but not bleeding-edge.
> I'm using a mostly
> > stock 2.4.18 kernel compiled from the official
> Redhat Rawhide 2.4.18 rpm
> > series. All the systems have all the latest update
> RPM's installed.
> >
> > Reading the Platform website shows that they only
> claim to be supporting
> >   2.4 kernels with glibc2.1 which is disconcerting
> because my systems
> > here all have glibc2.2.4-22. They also only have
> binaries for
> > linux-2.4-glibc2.1 on their FTP site.
> >
> > I don't consider glibc2.2 all that new or exotic
> and I don't want to
> > downgrade so I figured I'd ask this list at the
> same time I put in a
> > query to Platform engineering...
> >
> > Anyone running LSF on linux clusters with
> glibc2.2? Anyone else have
> > trouble getting LSF 4.2 to install out of the box
> on a updated RH7.2
> > platform? I think the installer scripts might be a
> bit flaky but the
> > binaries seem fine.
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bioclusters maillist  -
> Bioclusters@bioinformatics.org
> >
>
http://bioinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/bioclusters
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioclusters maillist  -
> Bioclusters@bioinformatics.org
>
http://bioinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/bioclusters


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Bioclusters maillist  -  Bioclusters@bioinformatics.org
http://bioinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/bioclusters