Re: [Condor-users] Condor errno 10061

["Finch, Ralph" <rfinch@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oops: bogus info in first post.  Still have error, but puzzle is
somewhere else.

First, machine .179 in the error message below is the submitting
machine, not the CM (got my IP numbers mixed).
A look at the submitting machine's logs shows lots of

11/8 10:54:48 Failed to start non-blocking update to
<192.168.50.1:9618>.
11/8 10:54:49 attempt to connect to <192.168.50.1:9618> failed: connect
errno = 10061 connection refused.
11/8 10:54:49 ERROR: SECMAN:2003:TCP connection to <192.168.50.1:9618>
failed

Ah ha!  Bad network address!  On that machine there is a bluetooth
dongle.  But, that machine also has in its condor_config file:

NETWORK_INTERFACE = 136.200.32.179

just so that the ethernet LAN address is used, not the dongle address.
Why isn't condor honoring the directive?  It did before....

Ralph Finch, P.E.
California Dept. of Water Resources
Delta Modeling Section, Bay-Delta Office
Room 215-13
1416 9th Street
Sacramento CA  95814
916-653-7552
rfinch@xxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: condor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:condor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Maxim kovgan
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 5:06 PM
To: Condor-Users Mail List
Subject: Re: [Condor-users] Condor errno 10061

Finch, Ralph wrote:
> condor -version
> $CondorVersion: 6.8.3 Jan  5 2007 $
> $CondorPlatform: INTEL-WINNT50 $
> 
> A pool of 46 Windows machines.
> 
> A spot check of start logs in the pool shows a lot of this:
> 
> 11/7 14:35:01 (pid:1884) Failed to start non-blocking update to 
> <136.200.32.179:9618>.
> 11/7 14:40:01 (pid:1884) attempt to connect to <136.200.32.179:9618>
> failed: connect errno = 10061 connection refused.
> 11/7 14:40:01 (pid:1884) ERROR: SECMAN:2003:TCP connection to 
> <136.200.32.179:9618> failed