Skip to content

Conversation

@hajgato
Copy link
Collaborator

@hajgato hajgato commented Nov 5, 2021

No description provided.

@boegel boegel added the update label Nov 7, 2021
@boegel boegel added this to the 4.x milestone Nov 7, 2021
@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Nov 7, 2021

@boegelbot please test @ generoso
CORE_CNT=16

@boegelbot
Copy link
Collaborator

@boegel: Request for testing this PR well received on login1

PR test command 'EB_PR=14290 EB_ARGS= /opt/software/slurm/bin/sbatch --job-name test_PR_14290 --ntasks="16" ~/boegelbot/eb_from_pr_upload_generoso.sh' executed!

  • exit code: 0
  • output:
Submitted batch job 7223

Test results coming soon (I hope)...

- notification for comment with ID 962590278 processed

Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me,
it is of no use to you (unless you think I have a bug, which I don't).

@boegelbot
Copy link
Collaborator

Test report by @boegelbot
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
cnx1 - Linux rocky linux 8.4, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v3 @ 2.60GHz (haswell), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/0711fefd04a6336730ec6b895161b496 for a full test report.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Nov 7, 2021

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
node3104.skitty.os - Linux centos linux 7.9.2009, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6140 CPU @ 2.30GHz (skylake_avx512), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/2976a3fddc3590d8dd4afe36c07958a0 for a full test report.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Nov 7, 2021

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
node2685.swalot.os - Linux centos linux 7.9.2009, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2660 v3 @ 2.60GHz (haswell), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/22efdd756c64f1276c5d42da2eefd79f for a full test report.

Copy link
Member

@verdurin verdurin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks fine.

@verdurin
Copy link
Member

verdurin commented Nov 8, 2021

Going in, thanks @hajgato!

@verdurin verdurin merged commit 1947e6e into easybuilders:develop Nov 8, 2021
@verdurin verdurin modified the milestones: 4.x, next release (4.5.1?) Nov 8, 2021
@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Nov 8, 2021

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
node3528.doduo.os - Linux RHEL 8.2, x86_64, AMD EPYC 7552 48-Core Processor (zen2), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/dab1ddb177d1b45a75e9ae8025ebc0e1 for a full test report.

@verdurin
Copy link
Member

verdurin commented Nov 8, 2021

Test report by @verdurin
FAILED
Build succeeded for 7 out of 8 (1 easyconfigs in total)
centos7.lan - Linux centos linux 7.9.2009, x86_64, Intel Core Processor (Skylake, IBRS), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/bf7ded0ed765c37c66c6ae0e6986c488 for a full test report.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Nov 8, 2021

@verdurin Any idea what went wrong there?

@verdurin
Copy link
Member

verdurin commented Nov 9, 2021

@boegel I think it's because the sanity check tries to run on 6 cores and this build node only has 4?

@branfosj
Copy link
Member

branfosj commented Nov 9, 2021

@boegel I think it's because the sanity check tries to run on 6 cores and this build node only has 4?

And on that note, see easybuilders/easybuild-easyblocks#2615 for skipping it or we could do something similar to easybuilders/easybuild-easyblocks#2611 to allow oversubscription.

@branfosj
Copy link
Member

branfosj commented Nov 9, 2021

@boegel I think it's because the sanity check tries to run on 6 cores and this build node only has 4?

And on that note, see easybuilders/easybuild-easyblocks#2615 for skipping it or we could do something similar to easybuilders/easybuild-easyblocks#2611 to allow oversubscription.

Confirmed that I also see that issue when running with < 6 cores.

I've PR-ed the oversubscription option in easybuilders/easybuild-easyblocks#2616 (which also includes part of the fix needed to run --sanity-check-only).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants