[DRMAA-WG] Monitoring JobTemplate attributes for running jobs

[Mariusz Mamoński]

Hi,

 In some fault-tollerant at the DRM-level scenarios job must be marked
as "rerunnable". Do we want to add this attribute to the DRMAAv2
JobTemplate?

Cheers,

On 23 August 2010 15:42, Daniel Templeton <daniel.templeton at oracle.com> wrote:
> 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
> --
>  drmaa-wg mailing list
>  drmaa-wg at ogf.org
>  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg
>



-- 
Mariusz