[torquedev] Re: [torqueusers] is there an epilogue.parallel script?

Bas van der Vlies basv at sara.nl
Tue Mar 21 14:53:09 MST 2006


On Mar 21, 2006, at 9:17 PM, Garrick Staples wrote:

> Since noone else seems to find these changes useful, I'm just going to
> apply the original epilogue.parallel and add epilogue.user.parallel  
> with
> no other changes.
>

Garrick does this means that the parallel scripts won't be executed  
on the MS?

I just liked that idea.  Just to reply to the another mail i do not  
use the
user scripts and prerun scripts




> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:57:17PM -0800, Garrick Staples alleged:
>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 05:46:57PM -0800, Garrick Staples alleged:
>>>> I say we make parallel scripts run on all nodes, add the "prerun"
>>>> script, and make sure the scripts can identify which node they are
>>>> running on ($PBS_NODENUM == 0 on MS)
>>>
>>> Replying to myself as usual, here's a patch that does the above.  It
>>> adds prologue.prerun, adds epilogue.parallel, adds
>>> epilogue.user.parallel (we forgot about that one), has MS run all
>>> parallel scripts on MS, and adds $PBS_NODENUM to all pelog scripts.
>>>
>>> For job launch and exiting, note that MS' parallel scripts run  
>>> _after_
>>> the sisters'.
>>
>> Turns out, I'm not finding these changes to be all that useful.  The
>> lack of $PBS_NODEFILE on sisters and during prologue.prerun, and that
>> prologue.parallel has no way of knowing the hostname of MS makes  
>> these
>> worthless for my purposes.
>>
>> To make these useful for *me*, we'd need to add a $PBS_MSHOST for
>> parallel scripts and create $PBS_NODEFILE much earlier in the  
>> process.
>> But at the end of the day, it doesn't really get me anything more  
>> than I
>> currently have.
>>
>> I know multiple people have asked for epilogue.parallel, so that  
>> will go
>> in.  epilogue.user.parallel is documented, so it should go in.
>>
>>
>> But I have some questions...
>>
>> Is having parallel scripts executed on MS actually useful to  
>> anyone?  Or
>> is this non-backwards compatible change just a "makes sense to me"
>> thing?  You could easily duplicate it by having prologue run
>> prologue.parallel.
>>
>> Would parallel.prerun actually be useful to anyone?  Noone has  
>> asked for
>> it, so I'm inclined to drop that idea.
>>
>> How are parallel and user scripts currently used?  I can't come  
>> with any
>> good reasons for them (without the other changes I mentioned above.)
>>
>> -- 
>> Garrick Staples, Linux/HPCC Administrator
>> University of Southern California
>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> torquedev mailing list
>> torquedev at supercluster.org
>> http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torquedev
>
>
> -- 
> Garrick Staples, Linux/HPCC Administrator
> University of Southern California
> _______________________________________________
> torquedev mailing list
> torquedev at supercluster.org
> http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torquedev

--
Bas van der Vlies
basv at sara.nl





More information about the torquedev mailing list