[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Condor-users] vm1_State taking ~4 minutes to update
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:09:17 -0800
- From: "Little, Colin E" <ColinLittle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Condor-users] vm1_State taking ~4 minutes to update
> -----Original Message-----
> From: condor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:condor-users-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Erik Paulson
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 9:29 PM
> To: Condor-Users Mail List
> Subject: Re: [Condor-users] vm1_State taking ~4 minutes to update
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:54:35PM -0800, Little, Colin E wrote:
> > After submitting a job to our pool (v 6.7.14) I asked it to give me
> > summary of which VMs on that machine were currently in use. To my
> > surprise I got differing answers depending on which VM was being
> > queried.
> > After 4 minutes this fixed itself and I got the expected output
> > Is this supposed to take this long?
> Yes. Remember, condor_status queries the collector for a snapshot of
> all of the ads it has - but startds only send updated ads every 5
> minutes or so, or when they change states. The vm_* changes aren't
> enough to cause the startd to send a new update for vm2, for example.
> If you use condor_status -direct you would have gotten the correct
> answer. You can also have your startds send more frequent updates to
> the collector.
Is there any reason that I shouldn't set UPDATE_INTERVAL to something
small -- say 30 seconds? The manual implies that this puts extra load
on the startd machine, but these are dedicated servers so I'm not too
worried about that. Am I going to be putting a lot of network traffic
in play or pushing the Collector hard if I do that? What do you think
the lowest value I could set that to would be?