Re: ARB 6.0 released
Hi Roland,
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 03:45:56PM +0200, rf@q-leap.de wrote:
>
> please note that Qlustar is providing DebMed backports. So once you'll
> have moved to wheezy, you could include our repo to get access to
> a lot of up-to-date DebMed stuff.
Its cool that you are doing backports. However, wouldn't it be
reasonable to use backports.debian.org? I assume there is some
considerable overlap in the work done by Qlustar and the official
backporters which could be shared.
> >> All in all it's a useful way to manage locally installed software
> >> without creating a huge mess in /usr/local.
>
> Andr> Hmmmm, I wonder how long this kind of tools might persist in
> Andr> times of docker.com and other virtualisation techniques. But
> Andr> I might underestimate modules, thought.
>
> Most HPC compute centers currently use modules. I don't think that
> docker is going to change that any time soon (and hopefully never, see
> my opinion below). modules is available as a package in Qlustar since a long
> time. Don't see why it should be easier to maintain Docker instances of
> each version rather than a cleanly compiled package on the platform one
> is running on and using something like modules.
This looks like a vote: "Yes, please package modules" to me. Would you
mind injecting modules into Debian Med Git (perhaps but not necessarily
Debian Science Git in case you don't mind joining another team)?
> As an admin, I would also resist to just install and activate a third
> party Docker container with the required package version. Who guarantees
> the integrity/security of the binary blob you're loading on your
> cluster? Things would change if someone like Debian or other trusted
> authority would provide Docker instances as an alternative to install
> packages. But is that going to happen?
>
> So I see Docker more as a convenient tool to provide some selected
> applications that are hard or impossible to get running on your own
> platform. Or to try something out with little effort, or for a third
> party software company to distribute their software packages as a
> maintained container. But less as the backbone of a serious compute center.
>
> Or would you as an administrator allow the Android App Store to be the
> basis of your HPC cluster, user workstations, etc. Probably not. To me
> the Docker Hub is very much the same thing as Android App Stores.
>
> I could be totally wrong though ... :)
You obviously have more and better information about Docker than I have.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
> >> It might be a candidate for packaging. Although it's not really
> >> "Debian Med".
>
> Andr> That's no point here. We have packaged some other non-Med/Bio
> Andr> stuff as preconditions for our work. On the other hand I
> Andr> would rather put this into Debian Science field to find more
> Andr> friends. As long as somebody is doing the work which provides
> Andr> a reasonable solution for several people that's fine.
>
> I could add the package on our list of to be maintained packages. We'll
> probably also package lmod soon which is supposed to be more advanced.
Sounds good. I'm in favour of officially packaging "anything that makes
sense to scientists"
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: