processor types (was Re: [jsdl-wg] Questions and potential changes to JSDL, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view)

[Andreas Savva]

The processor type values were *not* taken from CIM. (We looked at CIM
but decided it was not appropriate in this case.) The values are "based
on the Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) names of a small number of
common processor architectures." (p10 of the spec.)

You can make the  statement for "any x86" with the defined values.

Marvin Theimer wrote:
> Hi;
> 
>  
> 
>> I think with processor types we just grabbed a snapshot of the CIM model
>> 
>> and went with that; updating to use a later version of that would not
>> 
>> cause great difficulty (though the reverse problem might then exist, in
>> 
>> that it might become more difficult to say that any kind of x86 arch is
>> 
>> OK for a particular job).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> However, I believe we would assume the following interpretation of
>> 
>> processor requirements: if specified, that's what they want for all
>> 
>> processors associated with the job. If they didn't specify, they didn't
>> 
>> care and anything is therefore good enough.
> 
>  
> 
> Agreed.  Also, one possibility is to explicitly specify some of the
> commonly occurring “semi-bound” scenarios, such as “any x86”
> architecture.  I’m not familiar enough with the CIM world to know if
> they can provide us with guidance on how to solve the problem in general.
> 


-- 
Andreas Savva
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd