WIP: Enable Shared Cache Support

[mcfadden8]

Shared Cache Constraints

• Store must be configured by user to GLOBAL
• User must run with SINGLE redundancy scheme

Todo Items

• Identify files impacted by in a shared cache (GLOBAL store)
• Document impact for shared files in a shared cache (GLOBAL store)
• Modify documentation files to describe how global cache works (update old documentation)
• Remove previous global storage view implementation in preparation for supporting a generalized global cache implementation.

Notable Changes:

• Updated cmake minimum to 3.14.5 to stop cmake warnings with soon to be deprecated 2.8 support

[adammoody]

Let's toss the SCR_CONFIG_KEY_VIEW constant, as well. I think this is only used for storedesc->view.

[mcfadden8]

nice catch!

[adammoody]

Just for reference, we have this description about shared file access now:

https://scr.readthedocs.io/en/v3.0/users/config.html?highlight=global#file-per-process-vs-shared-access

There could be other references scattered around.

Anyway, once this is done and we know how it works, we can come back to update the docs with usage. Just recording placeholders here for now.

[mcfadden8]

Nice, I’ve added this to my PR’s TODO list.

…

-Marty From: Adam Moody ***@***.***> Date: Friday, November 4, 2022 at 3:04 PM To: LLNL/scr ***@***.***> Cc: McFadden, Marty ***@***.***>, Author ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [LLNL/scr] WIP: Enable Shared Cache Support (PR #511) Just for reference, we have this description about shared file access now: https://scr.readthedocs.io/en/v3.0/users/config.html?highlight=global#file-per-process-vs-shared-access<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/scr.readthedocs.io/en/v3.0/users/config.html?highlight=global*file-per-process-vs-shared-access__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!gWrIJrZ-NFBio1gyTXussghMTV0OfqJiWlcKZWCqiSAFUIceUBxXM0aIJPM52ZkkV-s$> There could be other references scattered around. Anyway, once this is done and we know how it works, we can come back to update the docs with usage. Just recording placeholders here for now. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/github.com/LLNL/scr/pull/511*issuecomment-1304295662__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!gWrIJrZ-NFBio1gyTXussghMTV0OfqJiWlcKZWCqiSAFUIceUBxXM0aIJPM58MFRq00$>, or unsubscribe<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABUBRVPPG7MZJCU4VYWJIQDWGWB6TANCNFSM6AAAAAARVSQ77Q__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!gWrIJrZ-NFBio1gyTXussghMTV0OfqJiWlcKZWCqiSAFUIceUBxXM0aIJPM5jSUEpc8$>. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[mcfadden8]

@adammoody - clang14 produced some warnings that I fixed. Most were small (like security warnings), but others like this are indicative of a potental bug. I rearranged this slightly so that rank would only be used when it was set. I moved the if block around to what I believe should hopefully be an equivalent of what the inention was previously.

[adammoody]

Yep, good catch!