[Paraview] [Non-DoD Source] Re: 5.0.1/Exodus Reader (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Utkarsh Ayachit]

Can you attach your CMakeCache.txt please? Also, try this:

On server side:
./pvserver --version

On client side:
./paraview --version

What do they say?



On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Angelini, Richard C (Rick) CIV USARMY
RDECOM ARL (US) <richard.c.angelini.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
> We did indeed build 5.0.1 (with your updates) and the connect_id is the
> same on both ends …..
>
>
> ________________________________
> Rick Angelini
> USArmy Research Laboratory
> CISD/HPC Architectures Team
> Phone:  410-278-6266
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Utkarsh Ayachit <utkarsh.ayachit at kitware.com>
> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:30 AM
> To: Rick Angelini <Richard.C.Angelini.CIV at mail.mil>
> Cc: "Hennessey, Joseph G CTR USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)"
> <joseph.g.hennessey2.ctr at mail.mil>, Simon Su <simon.m.su.CIV at mail.mil>,
> ParaView <paraview at paraview.org>
> Subject: Re: [Paraview] [Non-DoD Source] Re: 5.0.1/Exodus Reader
> (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
>> Utkarsh - I was able to get a clean build with this OSMesa patch - but it
>> looks like the OSMesa pvserver is not compatible with the production
>>5.0.1
>> client??????
>
> That's not the case. It should be compatible, so long are you're
> building 5.0.1 on the server side too.
>
>> **********************************************************************
>> Connection failed during handshake. This can happen for the following
>> reasons:
>>  1. Connection dropped during the handshake.
>>  2. vtkSocketCommunicator::GetVersion() returns different values on the
>>     two connecting processes (Current value: 100).
>>  3. ParaView handshake strings are different on the two connecting
>>     processes (Current value: paraview.5.0.connect_id.9407).
>> **********************************************************************
>
> This message is printed on both client and server. See the value for
> item 3. Do they match? Looks like you're using connection ids. Are
> they being specified appropriately on both ends?
>