hfss 14.0 running on Scientific Linux 6.1 or RHEL6.1

[lanceb]

Hi

Does anyone know a way around a runtime error generated by hfss 14.0 on a Scientific Linux 6.1 (RHEL6.1) OS, is it possible to resolve without a fresh compile on the OS, why does ansoft not keep up with supporting new releases in RHEL?

The runtime error I have is:
/opt/ansoft/hfss14.0/Linux/.setup_runtime: line 532: 21280 Segmentation fault "$@"

I am aware they only support up to RHEL5, why will hfss 14.0 not run on RHEL6 is there that much of a difference between the two releases of OS?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can shed any light on this issue.

 

[lanceb]

Apparently HFSS 15.0 should be released this Nov. which will support RHEL6.1 and hence SL6.1.

 

[drkirkby]

Redhat 6.0 was only released in 1999, but still HFSS does not support Redhat 6. 13 years is a long time to support one of only two Linux distributions they offically support.

I have some unoffical instructions on how to get it to work on Ubuntu if you want them. They are from Ansoft directly, but they make it clear it is not supported on Ubuntu.

Dave

 

[volker_muehlhaus]

Dave, you misunderstood something. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.1 was released in 2011.

 

[drkirkby]

Dave, you misunderstood something. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.1 was released in 2011.

Yes, but there is no support for any Redhat 6.x version - not even the first one which was released in 1999.

Dave

 

[volker_muehlhaus]

You know what Red Hat Enterprise Linux is? This is not your dad's Redhat 6. It is more or less the current industry standard in EDA, which is officially supported by Cadence, Agilent and others.

Official support for RHEL 6 is not yet available for all EDA tools. For example, Agilent support RHEL 4 and RHEL 5 for ADS 2011. At Sonnet, we support RHEL 4, RHEL 5 and now we also support RHEL 6. From what I remember, there where a few issues to solve, to make it compatible with RHEL 6.

 

[drkirkby]

You know what Red Hat Enterprise Linux is? This is not your dad's Redhat 6.

Yes, it is a UNIX-like operating system, which is based on Linux, which does not have the backward compatibility of an operating system like Solaris, which offers excellent backwards compatibility.

It is more or less the current industry standard in EDA, which is officially supported by Cadence, Agilent and others.

Official support for RHEL 6 is not yet available for all EDA tools. For example, Agilent support RHEL 4 and RHEL 5 for ADS 2011. At Sonnet, we support RHEL 4, RHEL 5 and now we also support RHEL 6. From what I remember, there where a few issues to solve, to make it compatible with RHEL 6.

But my point is, if a vendor supports Redhat, they really should be able to support a version that was released 13 years ago. The current situation is like saying "We support Windows 95 and 98, but not Windows XP, Vista, or Windows 7"

One of my dislikes of Linux is the lack of backwards compatibility. I can take a binary from Solaris I built 15 years ago, and run it on the latest version and be 99.9% it will work if it was properly written. If not, Oracle would sort out why. I recall a problem I had with Mathematica in Solaris 10. Sun admitted it was a backwards incompatible change in Solaris, and so fixed it.

That's why I am not over impressed with Linux, despite I have a Linux laptop and 3 Linux servers. But for relieability, I would chose Solaris any day.

Dave

 

[sky_123]

RHEL is excellent because it's tried and tested, and used in data centers all over the place (and guaranteed to be supported for a very very long time, many years). Therefore, if a product is supported on
RHEL, then you know that it will work in your environment for many years, and even when the OS has a new
release, you won't need to upgrade becuase the previous version of RHEL will continue to be supported for
years to come with patches. For this reason, I use a version of RHEL (Scientific Linux) even though technically
it doesn't have desktop specific stuff that I'm sure Ubunto or others may have.
I would agree with you that Solaris is excellent too (in fact I used to prefer it, at least for a developer it is
trailblazing), but for desktop use it is hard to use, due to lack of (for example) wifi drivers, and these are
a showstopper for most people. For server use, Linux can be as reliable, and some people have an aversion to Oracle (not always justified, but not always unjustified either! ; ).

 

[volker_muehlhaus]

But my point is, if a vendor supports Redhat, they really should be able to support a version that was released 13 years ago.

Once again: RHEL 6 is completely different from Redhat 6.
Same company, same number, but entirely different products.
RHEL version 1 was released in 2002, RHEL 6 was released in November 2011.

 

[drkirkby]

Once again: RHEL 6 is completely different from Redhat 6.
Same company, same number, but entirely different products.
RHEL version 1 was released in 2002, RHEL 6 was released in November 2011.

Sorry, I was mistaken there then.

I've used HFSS on CentOS 5.3. I've used HFSS on CentOS 4.7 with no issues at all (works just installing from the DVD). I've also used it on CentOS 5.6, but that takes a bit more work I think. I believe I needed to install a library which was not on the DVD

CentOS is said to be 100% binary compatible with RHEL, as it's derrived form the same sources. But the name Redhat is removed in most cases. I did find it necessary to edit /etc/redhat-release to install HFSS. One just needs to change the name and version from CentOS to Redhat.

CentOS is free, which is nice!

- - - Updated - - -

I would agree with you that Solaris is excellent too (in fact I used to prefer it, at least for a developer it is
trailblazing), but for desktop use it is hard to use, due to lack of (for example) wifi drivers, and these are
a showstopper for most people. For server use, Linux can be as reliable, and some people have an aversion to Oracle (not always justified, but not always unjustified either! ; ).

Yes, Solaris is not too good for desktop use, though I do use it myself, but then I have a Sun Ultra 27 workstation, with all Sun hardware, so its not an issue.

I'm a bit less keen since Oracle bought Sun. Since the takeover, the source code has been closed, after Sun opened it a few years before the takeover.

I used to go to the London OpenSolaris User Group (LOSUG) meetings, which were always interesting, with free hot and cold food and alcohol. Since the takeover by Oracle, there is no hot food or alcohol, though there is cold food and non-alcoholic drinks.

Dave

 

[volker_muehlhaus]

I've used HFSS on CentOS 5.3. I've used HFSS on CentOS 4.7

Those are the free versions of RHEL5 and RHEL4.

The problem/question abover referred to Scientific Linux 6.1 / RHEL6.1 / CentOS 6.1

Yes, Solaris is not too good for desktop use

Not so good for EDA use as well. Major EDA vendors are starting to drop Solaris platform support.

 

[drkirkby]

Not so good for EDA use as well. Major EDA vendors are starting to drop Solaris platform support.

At one time SPARC processors were far superior to x86 ones, but that is no longer true. So I think Solaris on SPARC is dying for scientific use. It is still used by the largest companies that need the stability it provides, but not for scientific software.

Solaris on x86 never really did catch on for scientific use. Wolfram Research supported it for Mathematica, but they have dropped both Solaris SPARC and x86 support now.

Funny enough, I fired up a Solaris SPARC box a few days back, just as it was the only machine I had around with a GPIB card. I need to write some software to grab data from my VNA.

Dave