Bug#360909: Revisiting batch/queue systems: slurm and munge
Gennaro,
I just a more detailed look at your munge packages from November -- nice
work!
Finer grained than the simple package I made myself at work, and with the
additional bells and whistles we'd want in Debian (munge user, correct
directories, debconf, ...) . I also rebuilt using Chris' newer 0.5.8 sources
I have been using at work using your debian/ directory. One change I could
suggest is a slight rewording of the Descriptions in debian/control and maybe
the debconf template. I can send you a patch if you want.
I'll test them a little at work, and barring surprises there, I think we
should upload this to Debian.
As far as I know you are not yet a Debian developer so I could act as your
Sponsor and uploader -- unless Joss wants to do that as he indicated in the
fall. I don't to jump the queue here -- I'd be bery happy to see Joss sponsor
it. I'd simply would like to see munge in Debian fairly soon.
As for the /dev/random vs /dev/urandom issue: I'd go with /dev/urandom in the
postinst. You did the Right Thing in the README.Debian to point to Chris'
QUICKSTART notes, and the debconf template mentions it as well. I simply
think that most installations will be behind institutional firewalls so that
the simpler entropy is 'good enough'. Worst case, we could offer a second
debconf question about 'strong entropy using /dev/random (slow)' vs 'weaker
entropy using /dev/urandom (fast)'. Or use /dev/urandom but print a big fat
debconf warning .... I think /dev/random is simply unuseable in a postinst.
Comments?
Dirk
On 7 March 2007 at 07:10, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| Hi Gennaro,
|
| On 7 March 2007 at 11:34, oliva.g@na.icar.cnr.it wrote:
| | Hi Dirk,
| | sorry for quoting all your mail, I do it for Josselin convenience. If
| | you check the slurm-llnl ITP Bug report logs (351688) [Bug] you
| | will see that Joss has offered himself for sponsorship.
|
| Ahh, I missed that. I saw Thijs response to your initial RFS, but not the
| ITP. Cool.
|
| | Anyway I'm still waiting for some feedback and help about my last
| | package version (especially about the /dev/random problem) and I don't
| | know if Joss is still interested in working on this.
|
| Let's take it off-line then. I used /dev/urandom in postinst for munge but
| then realized that you don't really need or want this as the crypto key is
| generated only once and then copied across the cluster.
| |
| | In general any comment about my package are welcome. At the moment I
| | have uploaded on my repository the version I'm using, but I can provide
| | an update version of the package soon.
|
| I'll have a look and maybe update my installation to your versions.
|
| | I'm happily working with munge and slurm on my debian cluster and
| | I would like to see it uploaded to the main distribution and to
| | contribute to this. Thanks for your interest
|
| Same here. Thanks for your work on this -- we'll have slurm and munge in
| Debian before long.
|
| Dirk
|
| |
| | Gennaro
| |
| | [Bug] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=351688
| |
| | On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:40:10PM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| | >
| | > Hi all,
| | >
| | > Last August, I started a short discussion here regarding batch management /
| | > queue / scheduler / resource managment software for cluster computing. I
| | > already mentioned slumrm [1] and munge [2]. The conclusion then was
| | > unsatisfying -- we don't have anything in Debian. At the time, I was unaware
| | > of Gennaro Oliva's mail to debian-mentors [3] and his package snapshots.
| | >
| | > To cut a long story short, I built two crude packages today I would like to
| | > offer for co-maintenance. Given my existing 80-some Debian packages, I really
| | > shouldn't take any more on. The crude packages will do for work, so if
| | > nobody has time or energy to pick them up ... I won't push the issue either.
| | > Because the packages deal with resources, authentication, ... they are not
| | > exactly trivial and would need some tender love and care to be done real
| | > well. They mostly autoconf fine, esp munge. Slurm needs a replacement
| | > scripts for /etc/init.d, a few contributed manual pages but nothing major.
| | >
| | > That said, I think it would be worth it. I am quite impressed with slurm.
| | > For a quick overview, see the website [1] and e.g. the recent presentation
| | > from 2006 [4] . Slurm is under active development and just released 1.2.1,
| | > it now even has a nice little gtk-based gui. [ Munge is used by slurm and is
| | > a smaller/simpler package. It already detects Debian in its init.d script and
| | > does The Right Thing. ]
| | >
| | > Gennaro: Are you still interested in working on this? I could possibly act
| | > as mentor and 'final compiler / uploader'.
| | >
| | > Anybody else working on clusters who needs a DFSG-free resource manager /
| | > scheduler?
| | >
| | > Dirk
| | >
| | > [1] http://www.llnl.gov/linux/slurm/
| | > [2] http://home.gna.org/munge/ -- but really also from llnl.gov
| | > [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2006/05/msg00020.html
| | > [4] http://www.llnl.gov/linux/slurm/slurm_design.pdf
| | >
| | > --
| | > Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.
| | > -- Thomas A. Edison
|
| --
| Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.
| -- Thomas A. Edison
--
Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.
-- Thomas A. Edison
Reply to: