[ogsa-wg] Re: [ogsa-bes-wg] Extensible state model for jobs

[Andre Merzky]

Chris, 

we should have space in the first saga-core-wg session, on
Thursday 3:45 pm.  Does that collide with some other session
for you (or other interested people)?  An alternative would
be Friday 11:00 am.

Cheers, Andre.

PS.: Thanks for the opportunity to announce our sessions on
     three lists! Har har >:-)



Quoting [Christopher Smith] (May 03 2006):
> Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 10:45:29 -0700
> Subject: Re: [saga-rg] Re: [ogsa-bes-wg] Extensible state model for jobs
> From: Christopher Smith <csmith at platform.com>
> To: Thilo Kielmann <kielmann at cs.vu.nl>, Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net>
> CC: "ogsa-wg at ggf.org" <ogsa-wg at ggf.org>, ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org,
> 	SAGA RG <saga-rg at ggf.org>
> 
> I agree ... we can discuss this next week.
> 
> -- Chris
> 
> 
> On 03/5/06 10:09, "Thilo Kielmann" <kielmann at cs.vu.nl> wrote:
> 
> > Chris and Andre,
> > 
> > I think we really should resolve this issue face-to-face next week at GGF17.
> > That will save a lot of email typing time...
> > 
> > Andre, do we have a slot in one of our sessions?
> > 
> > 
> > Thilo
> > 
> > On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 06:08:46PM +0200, Andre Merzky wrote:
> >> X-Original-To: kielmann at localhost
> >> Delivered-To: kielmann at localhost.cs.vu.nl
> >> Delivered-To: grdfm-saga-rg-outgoing at mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
> >> X-Original-To: grdfm-saga-rg at mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
> >> Delivered-To: grdfm-saga-rg at mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
> >> Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 18:08:46 +0200
> >> From: Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net>
> >> To: Christopher Smith <csmith at platform.com>
> >> Cc: Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net>,
> >> "ogsa-wg at ggf.org" <ogsa-wg at ggf.org>, ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org,
> >> SAGA RG <saga-rg at ggf.org>
> >> Subject: [saga-rg] Re: [ogsa-bes-wg] Extensible state model for jobs
> >> 
> >> Quoting [Christopher Smith] (May 03 2006):
> >>> 
> >>> On 03/5/06 05:36, "Andre Merzky" <andre at merzky.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Right now its absent because only those states which can be
> >>>> actually reached by SAGA method calls are present.  Now, as
> >>>> you said earlier, it can be assumed a flaw that SAGA has no
> >>>> means to put a job into 'Pending' state.
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> So, if there are some use cases or some agreement that the
> >>>> API should allow to move a job into 'Pending' state, the
> >>>> method/attribute will be added, and the state will be added.
> >>>> 
> >>> The state that a job enters after a create_job operation is 'pending', so
> >>> the create_job operation is the method that puts a job in this state.
> >> 
> >> Right, I understand that from the queuing point I think.
> >> However, from the application level it does not matter, as
> >> it cannot actively change that state.  We have no notion of
> >> queue states at all.
> >> 
> >> Well, let me put it differently: what do we gain by moving
> >> the state to the higher level?  It complicates the state
> >> diagram (not much, that is not the point), but does not
> >> allow to perform any new state transition from application
> >> level.
> >> 
> >> As said, I would compare this to Suspended state: its
> >> clearly an important state in many systems, but as long as
> >> the API does not expose means to suspend/resume a job, the
> >> state is meaningless, and merily informative (e.g. the job
> >> gut suspended by a 3rd party, or by the backend).  That
> >> information is exposed however, through the job state
> >> details - same holds for hols (ha!) I think.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> This state is required for queuing systems ... I can't even imagine how it
> >>> got dropped from the state diagram. I think you're trying to map the task
> >>> state model too closely. ;-)
> >> 
> >> Nono, that has nothing to do with the task states - they
> >> could easily leave that state out.  Well, its very
> >> convenient to have the same model here, thats for sure ;-)
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>> Similar reasoning holds for 'Suspend' - as long as we don't
> >>>> have suspend/resume methods, we would not like to expose a
> >>>> 'Suspended' state on the higher level state diagram.
> >>> 
> >>> This I agree with.
> >> 
> >> As said, it might well be that SAGA is broken in the respect
> >> that we doesn't allow job.hold (), or submit into hold.
> >> Well, it wasn't in the use-cases ... :-P
> >> 
> >> Cheers, Andre.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> -- Chris
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> "So much time, so little to do..."  -- Garfield
> >> 
> > 
> > 



-- 
"So much time, so little to do..."  -- Garfield