Re: [Condor-users] Will GAHP fill the gap?

[Erik Paulson <epaulson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 11:49:31AM -0700, Sean Looper wrote:
> I am writing a GUI frontend for Condor on Windows.  So far I have been
> communicating with Condor via the command line using -xml. 

Some quick points:

- There are a couple of existing Condor GUIs, you might want to see
if any of them meet your needs.

- You might be better off using the -format option to the Condor tools
instead of the -xml

> The time it
> takes to retrieve the xml data for hundreds of tasks is very long.  I am
> wondering if anyone can explain GAHP to me a little and if it is a
> viable option for communicating with Condor on the Windows platform?  
> 

The GAHP will likely not be any faster than the tools, especially for
just getting status information. (If you're invoking the tools often
enough that you're worried about the tool startup cost, you're polling
too frequently :)

If you can completely control your job submision, it's faster to watch the
job logfiles (ie log = somefile in the submit file), instead of polling -
Condor updates those as events happen; many job monitoring systems are
built on top of those files. 

-Erik

ps Someday Quill, or whatever we wind up calling it, will provide much, much
faster and better read interfaces to the job queue, but we have no plan
on how it's going to work on Windows right now. Probably Cygwin Postgres, 
but maybe some sort of ODBC to your favorite Windows database.