[DRMAA-WG] Monitoring JobTemplate attributes for running jobs

[Daniel Templeton]

I have a customer who has the resubmission of failed jobs in a greater 
workflow as a critical requirement.  That's not actually something that 
OGE itself supports, so I'm all for having it in DRMAA to plug the hole.

Daniel

On 08/23/10 02:50 AM, Peter Tröger wrote:
> We already have some understanding of persistency, so the implementation effort is manageable. I am more concerned about a clear separation of live monitoring information and original submission data. For the latter, I saw no use case so far ...
>
> Best,
> Peter.
>
> Am 29.07.2010 um 11:02 schrieb Andre Merzky:
>
>> Our use case for having access to the original complete job template
>> is that the user can easily resubmit the same job - just changing
>> for example some command line parameter, but leaving the remainder
>> fixed.   In SAGA this would look like:
>>
>>   saga::job::service     js ("drmaa://torque.remote.net/");
>>   saga::job::job         j1 = js.get_job (jobid);   // std::string
>>   saga::job::description jd = j1.get_description ();
>>
>>   jd.set_attributes ("Arguments", new_args);  // std::vector<std::string>
>>
>>   saga::job::job j2 = js.create_job (jd);
>>
>>
>> I understand that the backend may no be able to keep the original
>> job template - in that case, a 'DoesNoExist' exception on
>> 'get_description()' would be appropriate, IMHO.  If the DRMAA
>> implementation can cache that description somewhere, fine :-)
>>
>> My $0.02, Andre.
>>
>>
>> PS: saga::job::description == drmaa::job::template
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting [Peter Tr?ger] (Jul 29 2010):
>>> From: Peter Tröger<peter at troeger.eu>
>>> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:07:23 +0200
>>> To: Mariusz Mamo??ski<mamonski at man.poznan.pl>,
>>> 	drmaa-wg at ogf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [DRMAA-WG] Monitoring JobTemplate attributes for running jobs
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 28.07.2010 um 23:42 schrieb Mariusz Mamo??ski:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> 2010/7/28 Peter Tröger<peter at troeger.eu>:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Agenda item #8 was not discussed in the call today, but it is the burning
>>>>> issue for me at the moment. Please have a look in the  "Attributes in
>>>>> JobInfo" tab:
>>>>> http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AqyvnBscJNqxcnJBSUs5dXRrU29EUVhGOGthc1lDTFE
>>>>> Currently, we allow to access the original JobTemplate from a JobInfo
>>>>> object. The idea was to get, beside the job monitoring information, also the
>>>>> information about what was demanded at submission time.
>>>>> While doing the Condor mapping, I figured out that most of the JobTemplate
>>>>> attributes are also monitorable for a running job. This includes things such
>>>>> as executable name and working directory. Normally they should be the same
>>>>> as in the JobTemplate, but Condor and SGE (at least) have this magic job
>>>>> wrapper stuff, were the admin can automatically and silently reconfigure /
>>>>> reinterprete everything in a JobTemplate. This might lead to the situation
>>>>> were the user asks for A, and silently gets B.
>>>>> The question: Should we drop the support for getting the JobTemplate as part
>>>>> of JobInfo, because the information is useless ? Instead, we could add some
>>>>> (or maybe most) of the JobTemplate attributes as true dynamic monitoring
>>>>> information to JobInfo.
>>>> in my opinion repeating almost all attributes in this case brings
>>>> additional redundancy in the DRMAA API (another reason may be
>>>> performance - the JobTemplate attribute are more likely immutable).
>>>> Why not simply request expected behavior in the spec? e.g.:
>>>> a) the JobTemplate being part of the JobInfo struct is a reference to
>>>> the JobTemplate used for submission (for jobs submitted outside the
>>>> session it MUST be NULL)
>>>> b) the JobTemplate reflects actual attributes of a job (without
>>>> obligation that all attributes must be available - e.g. in Torque the
>>>> actually executed command is hidden in script)
>>>
>>> Th interesting thing is that we already started to do this replication, for example: JobTemplate::candidateMachines vs. JobInfo::allocatedMachines. I still vote for finishing this replication, and remove the JT reference from JobInfo as compensation. I also have a problem with fetching live data from a structure called "template".
>>>
>>> You example from Torque underlines my argumentation - we should choose a monitorable sub set of JobTemplate and add it to the JobInfo structure, instead of linking the JobTemplate directly.
>>>
>>> Any other opinions ?
>>>
>>> Peter.
>> --
>> Nothing is ever easy.
>
> --
>    drmaa-wg mailing list
>    drmaa-wg at ogf.org
>    http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg