[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Condor-users] Mixed setup?
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:13:10 +0000
- From: Matt Hope <matthew.hope@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Condor-users] Mixed setup?
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:46:18 +0100, Steffen Grunewald
> Hi Matt,
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:55:54AM +0000, Matt Hope wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:32:57 +0100, Steffen Grunewald
> > <steffen.grunewald@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I got a load of machines running Condor 6.4.7 (which I cannot upgrade too
> > > easily since they're busy), and a submit machine with 6.7.3 installed.
> > > Would it be possible to use the new DAG features that have been introduced
> > > in the early 6.6 series without modifications to the pool, or would I have
> > > to wait for the machines to become idle and upgrade them?
> > > >From my understanding, DAG functionality is located on the submit machine
> > > only - thus it should be sufficient to have it running at a recent version
> > > - or am I simply wrong?
> > Entirely unrelated to the mixed setup but taking up your other point
> > about waiting for them to become free it would be interesting to see
> > if you could submit a job which was cabable of upgrading the condor
> > install on the machine it ran on...
> Indeed, but there's no guarantee for Condor that you would reach all
> machines, no matter how large your job cluster would be - and a machine
> that causes the job to end immediately (because there's nothing to do)
> would eat up the rest of the cluster happily - unless you add a long
> sleep at the end of the job which would occupy the machine for an
> unnecessary long time then :(
> But it's a nice idea!
I was thinking an autoscript which assigned one process per machine in