[torqueusers] Re: Evaluating DRMAA + Torque

Joshua Bernstein jbernstein at penguincomputing.com
Wed Jun 4 15:50:07 MDT 2008



Darren Platt wrote:
> Thanks!  One of the attractions is the portability, so we don't have to 
> recode if we outgrow or change schedulers.  Part of the problem seems to 
> be the abstraction.  For example, setting the outputPath  field in the 
> job to  myhost:/some/path/to/some/file.txt    didn't deliver the result 
> to the headnode in the way -o   would.  The problem seemed to be in how 
> the drmaa layer was rewriting the path,  assumptions about whether the 
> intermediate path /some/path / etc existed on the node vs the submit 
> host.    

These are the exact sorts of issues I ran into when I was playing with 
DRMAA.

> So I assume most people are using either the shell or torque 
> api to submit then?

Absolutely. You might be able to abstract this concept into "job 
templates" that then only need to be modified to fit a new scheduler, 
allowing you to NOT change your code. Generally though, the most common 
or even popular scheduler's accept in the PBS (TORQUE) style submit 
scripts, so I don't think you are taking a risk by using TORQUE.

-Joshua Bernstein
Software Engineer
Penguin Computing



More information about the torqueusers mailing list