Some of our customers using LSF has no-login policy (no rsh/ssh). This is not unusual.
It's not real easy for me to upgrade to 7.1.2. There's a lot of customization we've done to previous version to make it work for our application. I'm trying to get a quick solution with our existing LAM/MPI.
Thanks,
YoungHui
-----Original Message-----
From: lam-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:lam-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:52 AM
To: General LAM/MPI mailing list
Subject: Re: LAM: lamboot without rsh/ssh
That is correct -- Guangyu Wu's response was technically correct but misleading. The TM interface is for Torque/PBS integration, not LSF inteegration.
I think the outstanding questions are:
- What about your environment is disallowing the use of ssh? (it's surprising that ssh would not be allowed, but not unheard of)
- Can you upgrade your version of LAM? I honestly don't remember what job scheduler support we had for LSF way back then (years ago!), but I do remember that we had a bug in the LSF detection stuff for at least a little while (I don't remember what version(s) specifically). As far as I know, the LSF stuff is correct in the current version (7.1.2). Is there any possibility that you can upgrade?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lam-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:lam-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Christopher Porter
> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:32 AM
> To: General LAM/MPI mailing list
> Subject: Re: LAM: lamboot without rsh/ssh
>
> I have looked carefully through the LAM-MPI Users guide and
> can not find any integration notes for what must be done in
> an LSF environment to use the "TM" interface. The
> documentation for Torque / PBSpro states that the batch
> queueing system is automatically detected and the TM
> interface is used.
>
> So I have "tested" the integration with LSF by doing nothing
> special and trying to run a job. Nothing seemed to detect
> the LSF environment, the job failed saying that it could not
> contact the LAM daemons (because none were booted). So I
> believe this is an incorrect statement and the "TM" interface
> is not integrated with LSF.
>
> Someone prove me wrong? Please?
>
> chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lam-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:lam-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Guangyu Wu
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 5:56 PM
> To: 'General LAM/MPI mailing list'
> Subject: ´ð¸´: LAM: lamboot without rsh/ssh
>
> There is a TM interface integrated in WMS such as PBS Pro
> which could boot lam without rsh/ssh. I believe LSF also has
> such an integration with Lam.
> HTH
>
> -----ÓʼþÔ¼þ-----
> ·¢¼þÈË: lam-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:lam-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> ´ú±í Phil Ehrens
> ·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2006Äê4ÔÂ25ÈÕ 3:44
> ÊÕ¼þÈË: General LAM/MPI mailing list
> Ö÷Ìâ: Re: LAM: lamboot without rsh/ssh
>
> YoungHui Amend wrote:
> > I'm using an old versions (6.3) of LAM/MPI. In this
> version of LAM,
> > lamboot uses rsh to run hboot which forks lam demon (lamd). The
> > problem we are running in to is that rsh is not allowed
> (for security
> > reasons) on the cluster of machines connected to LSF. Ssh
> also causes
> > problems because it prompts you for the password. I know there's a
> > way to setup ssh so it doesn't prompt for a password, but
> it is not a viable option.
> > So, is there a way to fork lam demon without going through lamboot?
>
> You have an installation where rsh can't be used due to
> security concerns... and ssh can't be used because it's "not viable"?
>
> Do they make you communicate with you coworkers by blinking
> flashlights at them?
> _______________________________________________
> This list is archived at http://www.lam-mpi.org/MailArchives/lam/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This list is archived at http://www.lam-mpi.org/MailArchives/lam/
>
|
