[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [HTCondor-users] purpose of SHADOW_WORKLIFE option
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:31:06 -0500
- From: Brian Bockelman <bbockelm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [HTCondor-users] purpose of SHADOW_WORKLIFE option
There's no point to have shadow worklife shorter than the claim, right?
Are there any strange effects if shadow worklife is significantly longer than claim worklife?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 1:27 PM, "John (TJ) Knoeller" <johnkn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There is no good reason for it to be anything other than forever.
> I suspect that the value was set to be conservative when the feature of shadow re-use was first added.
> We will be changing the default for SHADOW_WORKLIFE to something more reasonable for the next development release.
>> On 3/26/2014 4:23 AM, Pek Daniel wrote:
>> Is there any practical use case which requires setting SHADOW_WORKLIFE
>> other than "infinite"? What's the point of not reusing shadow
>> processes forever? Is there any memory leak in it which requires this
>> periodical "restart"?
>> HTCondor-users mailing list
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to htcondor-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with a
>> subject: Unsubscribe
>> You can also unsubscribe by visiting
>> The archives can be found at:
> HTCondor-users mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send a message to htcondor-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with a
> subject: Unsubscribe
> You can also unsubscribe by visiting
> The archives can be found at: