<p>Last time I used icc (two years ago) I vaguely recall that compile time was slower but it couldn't have been that much slower. I would have remembered that. The paraview-manta render speed tests I was doing back then showed that icc's compiled result was a percent or two faster. This was on an intel based linux cluster.</p>
<p>About the same time frame I did have trouble with the pgi compilers on crays. Burlen likely had recent knowledge about the differences.</p><p>On Sep 18, 2012 1:18 PM, "Hodge, Neil E." <<a href="mailto:hodge3@llnl.gov" target="_blank">hodge3@llnl.gov</a>> wrote:</p>
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
David:<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: David E DeMarle <<a href="mailto:dave.demarle@kitware.com" target="_blank">dave.demarle@kitware.com</a>><br>
Date: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:15 PM<br>
To: Neil Hodge <<a href="mailto:hodge3@llnl.gov" target="_blank">hodge3@llnl.gov</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:paraview@paraview.org" target="_blank">paraview@paraview.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:paraview@paraview.org" target="_blank">paraview@paraview.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Paraview] Building Paraview from source<br>
<br>
>Are you compiling on a lustre file system? That can significantly slow<br>
>the compilation since the parallel filesystem is optimized for write<br>
>throughput of large files. On ORNL jaguar in the NFS mounted<br>
>directories it takes 10 minutes or so to compile. Compiling on the<br>
>lustre mounted directories takes an hour or more. (10% per hour is a<br>
>bit worse than what I've ever seen on the older trilab computers so it<br>
>may be something else). I get around this by compiling from the fast<br>
>filesystem and copying the result to the lustre partition where the<br>
>back end nodes can see it.<br>
><br>
>Try "module unload altd". This is a profiling library that some of the<br>
>big machines use recenty that does not like "make -j anything". Once<br>
>that is removed you can make -j to your hearts content.<br>
><br>
<br>
No, I was not on the Lustre filesystem. Regardless, I moved everything to<br>
my home directory. This did not help the speed issue much.<br>
<br>
Removing the kernel module did reduce the dependency problems somewhat,<br>
but not completely.<br>
<br>
<br>
FYI, the essence of my build script follows:<br>
<br>
cmake ../ParaView-3.14.1-Source \<br>
-DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=icc -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=icpc \<br>
-DCMAKE_Fortran_COMPILER=ifort \<br>
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=$HOME/PARAVIEW \<br>
-DHDF5_INCLUDE_DIR=$HOME/HDF5/include \<br>
-DHDF5_LIBRARY=$HOME/HDF5/lib/libhdf5.so \<br>
-DPARAVIEW_ENABLE_PYTHON=ON<br>
make -j 4<br>
make install<br>
<br>
However, after a bit of experimentation, I see that when I remove the line<br>
<br>
-DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=icc -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=icpc<br>
<br>
i.e., when I use the gnu compilers, the build seems to proceed at a rate<br>
that indicates a total build time of maybe 30 minutes or so.<br>
<br>
<br>
So, the question is, are you aware of any problems with using the intel<br>
compilers to build paraview??? Thanks.<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Neil<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
======================================================================<br>
Neil Hodge, Ph.D.<br>
Methods Development Group<br>
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Powered by <a href="http://www.kitware.com" target="_blank">www.kitware.com</a><br>
<br>
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at <a href="http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html" target="_blank">http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html</a><br>
<br>
Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: <a href="http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView" target="_blank">http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView</a><br>
<br>
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:<br>
<a href="http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview" target="_blank">http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview</a><br>
</blockquote></div>