[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [condor-users] Job Vacate Policy
I think that what you can try is to use "periodic_*" expressions.
For instance, you may use "periodic_remove" to avoid suspension of a job. We
used this and it worked.
You may alternatively use periodic_hold and periodic_release to attempt to
reschedule the suspended job.
If you really trust your users, you can put "START=TRUE, SUSPEND=KILL=FALSE" and
make them play with "periodic*" and job "requirements" expressions.
I suppose that allowing the submittor to decide what would be the job's behavior
when the resource owner wants the resource back, is inhenrently incompatible
with the Condor's phylosophy of "making the cycle stealing transparent for the
What the developers think about all this?
Quoting Thomas Bauer <tombauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> is there a way, that the submitters of the condor-jobs can choose, what to
> happen with their job, if the executing machine becomes used by its owner
> before the job has run to its end? I'm using Condor for WinNT, and I just
> found out to configure each executing machine, how to proceed. But it makes
> more sense on our network, that the user can choose if the job should be
> left in memory or should be stopped on that machine and be started on
> another machine.
> The only idea I have for this problem, is to split our pool in two pools
> with different job vacate policys, but that would be in my eyes just an
> impractical workaround.
> Thomas Bauer
> Condor Support Information:
> To Unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with
> unsubscribe condor-users <your_email_address>
Condor Support Information:
To Unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe condor-users <your_email_address>