[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Condor-users] Schedd communication
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:32:31 -0500
- From: Erik Paulson <epaulson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Condor-users] Schedd communication
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:46:55PM -0400, Gabriel Mateescu wrote:
> When schedd receives a new job, it
> performs a chain of actions which
> begins with:
> 1. Send ad to central manager
> 2. Call reschedule_negotiator
> Looking in the log files, I see that
> sometimes the order in which these
> actions occur is reversed, i.e., 2;1.
> That means that it is possible for the
> negotiator to fetch from the collector
> a set of ads which misses the latest ads
> from schedd. Looking into the logs, this
> seems to happen.
> Is this a design decision, to have schedd
> send the ads to the collector asynchronously
> and invoke reschedule_negotiator without
> waiting for the collector to receive the ads?
It is a design decision to have separation of the update of the collector
and the request for the new negotiation cycle. It is not necessarily a
design decision for them to be out of order, but it is something that we
allow - the request for a reschedule is meant more as a hint. Occasionally
it can get there first, or sometimes not at all, but the system will
still eventually see the correct information, just maybe not until the
next negotiation cycle.
> Thank you.
> Gabriel Mateescu
> Condor-users mailing list