[saga-rg] job states...

[Andre Merzky]

Quoting [Christopher Smith] (Feb 11 2006):
> 
> What I meant by that comment is that where it is a subset, it should reflect
> the BES terminology. I think that the number of states represented is enough
> already. ;-)

Would it make sense to just copy the BES state diagram?  

It did not exist when we (== you ;-) drafted the SAGA job
states - if it would have been around then, we might have
had copied it already.

Apart from the SystemXXX/UserXXX states, and from Hold, 
it is not that much different from the SAGA model anyway.

Cheers, Andre.


> -- Chris
> 
> 
> On 10/2/06 17:30, "Andre Merzky" <andre at merzky.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Chris, 
> > 
> > many thanks for the answers! :-)
> > 
> >> By the way ... I believe that the state diagram should at least be a subset
> >> of the BES state diagram ... we should adopt the same names.
> > 
> > I agree, kind of - I would say that the SAGA job state
> > diagram should at _most_ be subset of the BES state diagram.
> > It could be _S_implier :-)
> > 
> > Cheers, Andre.
> > 
> > 
> > Quoting [Christopher Smith] (Feb 10 2006):
> >> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:41:18 -0800
> >> Subject: Re: [saga-rg] job states...
> >> From: Christopher Smith <csmith at platform.com>
> >> To: Simple API for Grid Applications WG <saga-rg at ggf.org>
> >> 
> >> On 4/2/06 11:18, "Andre Merzky" <andre at merzky.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Ok ... I'll try to answer these, at least from my viewpoint.
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> I think that diagram is wrong, isn't it?  Well, here are my
> >>> questions:
> >>> 
> >>>   - if we submit a job, its immediately Queued - is that
> >>>     right?  Should it be pending before (e.g. as long as the
> >>>     queuing request travels the middleware layers)?
> >>> 
> >> To me, Queued is the same as Pending. Pending is probably a better word for
> >> this. Can't remember where the Queued name came from, as LSF uses PEND.
> >> 
> >>>   - can the hold and suspend states reached only from
> >>>     'Running', or from elsewhere as well?
> >>> 
> >> You can only go into a Hold state from Pending, I think, or directly into
> >> Hold on submission.
> >> 
> >>>   - What is the difference between 'Hold' and 'Suspend'?
> >>> 
> >> A Hold state tells the scheduler/broker not to consider this job for
> >> scheduling/dispatch until the hold is explicitly released.
> >> 
> >>>   - Are there signals defined (apart from KILL) which shange
> >>>     the job state?  I guess that is not as simple as saying
> >>>     SUSP does suspend - that state is probably defined by
> >>>     the scheduler, not by the OS...
> >>> 
> >> Right ... this is implementation dependent on the mechanism used to suspend
> >> a job (might be a signal, might be some other mechanism). What is important
> >> is that there is an operation to initiate the state transition.
> >> 
> >>>   - What is the use case for distinguishing between UserHold
> >>>     and SystemHold, or between UserSuspend and
> >>>     SystemSuspend?
> >>>    
> >> If I preempt workload, the system will put it into a SystemSuspend state
> >> that a user cannot cause a switch out of, otherwise a system may become
> >> oversubscribed due to the preempted and preempting jobs running at the same
> >> time. A UserSuspend can be entered and exited by the user, and is often used
> >> to hold processing to check progress, etc.
> >>  
> >> 
> >> By the way ... I believe that the state diagram should at least be a subset
> >> of the BES state diagram ... we should adopt the same names.
> >> 
> >> -- Chris
> > 
> > 



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