I second Gavin.

A lot of people have been mentioning LXC and Docker ans cures to this problem, and to paraphrase The Princess Bride, you keep using those words I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Docker and LXC are great for isolating running services: apache, DNS, etc. For the most part, we are stalking about user-space libraries and programs. I don't see how Docker and LXC could be used or provide any benefit in this context.

--
Prentice


On 06/30/2014 08:18 AM, Gavin W. Burris wrote:
Hi, Jonathan.

Or you can just build software in a dedicated, version-named directory
with the --prefix option.  Many in HPC use the environment modules.
Here is a good article about it:
http://www.admin-magazine.com/HPC/Articles/Environment-Modules

Cheers.

On Sat 06/28/14 04:07PM +0200, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
You guys are mentioning installing applications in a modular way, couldnt
that be achieved in a chroot environment or by using an LXC container?

Regards.

On Wed 06/25/14 11:30AM -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
More often than not, commercial and closed source
applications are built and qualified (for support and guarantee of
functionality) against several very specific OS and library versions.
It is
rare, in my experience with this, that any of these are up-to-date
versions
of Red Hat or Red Hat derived distributions.
In my experience, Red Hat is often the first, if not the only, supported
OS for a commercial Linux application.  This is due to the
aforementioned lifecycle support and predictable ABI/API.

one unsupported platform is as good as the other, with the caveat that
one
needs to pay attention to the ease of management as well as other
things.
Walking the well trodden path provides ease of management.  I don't want
to deploy a custom OS stack and have to throw my hands in the air when I
hit a difficult bug that brings operations to a halt.  I like hardware
support.  I like talking to the systems engineers.  I have support on
both Red Hat and CentOS (SL too).  Deploying things like InfiniBand and
pNFS is easy and commercially supported with RHEL.

This is why stateless machines, booting an instance with a particular OS
for
a particular job, is a *far* more reasonable and workable approach than
Stateless is cool, but I choose my battles.  Supporting multiple OS
platforms is not a reasonable use of my time.  If the other-OS
application really is the end-all-be-all, then maybe, in a VM.  I do
have to check out Docker.

Err ... no.  The center of mass of the market has moved on to the faster
I'm saying that you shouldn't change the base OS and its APIs, but _do_
install the latest languages and applications in a modular way.
Win-win.  Programmers get to choose the latest tools, with a solid base
for those software builds, plus hardware support.

Cheers,
--
Gavin W. Burris
Senior Project Leader for Research Computing
The Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf



_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit 
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf

Reply via email to