[torqueusers] epilogue script runs twice

Jeremy Enos jenos at ncsa.uiuc.edu
Tue Jun 15 07:17:00 MDT 2010


More on this:
Sometimes epilogues are supposed to be called with certain arguments:

#argv[1]        job id
#argv[2]        job execution user name
#argv[3]        job execution group name
#argv[4]        job name
#argv[5]        session id
#argv[6]        list of requested resource limits
#argv[7]        list of resources used by job
#argv[8]        job execution queue
#argv[9]        job account

When multiple epilogues run, sometimes it's without any of these args.  
Is this expected behavior?
thx-

     Jeremy

On 3/25/2010 1:09 PM, Jeremy Enos wrote:
> Update:
>
> Since my workaround to prevent multiple epilogues from running started 
> functioning properly, it has flushed out another major problem.  Of 
> the multiple epilogues launched which race to create a lockfile or 
> exit (my workaround), apparently not all are equal.  I was having 
> terrible intermittent problems with my epilogue sequence.  It 
> eventually traced down to the fact that I use the $PBS_NODEFILE 
> environment in the epilogue sequence.  Some epilogues have it, some 
> don't!!  ??
> So depending on which of the multiple epilogues got canceled or got 
> the lockfile, I may or may not have a failure.
>
>     Jeremy
>
> On 3/18/2010 5:16 PM, Jeremy Enos wrote:
>> Update-
>> I have my workaround working (exiting the extra conflicting epilogue 
>> scripts) properly now.  I still consider this a serious bug, since I 
>> wouldn't have had to go through this runaround otherwise.  I'm aware 
>> of a few other people that are negatively impacted by this as well.  
>> I'll post a bug when I can.
>>
>>     Jeremy
>>
>> On 3/15/2010 5:38 PM, Jeremy Enos wrote:
>>> This seemed to kind of die here, but my problem has not.
>>>
>>> If I understand correctly, the description of the design purpose 
>>> (previous epilogue attempt fails, so it tries again), then no two 
>>> epilogues for the same job should ever run simultaneously.  Yet they 
>>> do.  So perhaps I'm seeing a different issue than the described 
>>> logic which is intentional.
>>>
>>> I've also tried unsuccessfully to "lock" the first epilogue in 
>>> place, and abort if that lock is already in place.  I'm doing this 
>>> via the lockfile utility- and for whatever reason, it's not 
>>> effective in preventing multiple epilogues to launch simultaneously 
>>> for the same job.
>>>
>>> Let me explain why it's important for me that this doesn't happen- 
>>> in the epilogue, I run a health check on a GPU resource which has a 
>>> failure condition if the device is inaccessible.  I'm getting loads 
>>> of false positive detections simply because the device /is/ 
>>> inaccessible while another epilogue is running a health check 
>>> already.  I can't seem to get effective logic in place to prevent 
>>> this from happening (I already check ps info for epilogue processes 
>>> launched against the given jobid, and it's only partially 
>>> effective).  My only option is to disable my health check altogether 
>>> to prevent the false positive detection due to conflicting epilogues.
>>>
>>> I want and expect a single epilogue (or epilogue.parallel) instance 
>>> per job per node, as the documentation describes.  Why is this 
>>> behavior not considered a bug??
>>>
>>>     Jeremy
>>>
>>> On 2/3/2010 5:49 PM, Jeremy Enos wrote:
>>>> Ok- so there is design behind it.  I have two epilogues trampling 
>>>> each other.  What is giving Torque the indication that a job exit 
>>>> failed?  In other words, what constitutes a job exit failure?  
>>>> Perhaps that's where I should be looking to correct this.
>>>> thx-
>>>>
>>>>     Jeremy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/3/2010 1:28 PM, Garrick Staples wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 03:59:48AM -0600, Jeremy Enos alleged:
>>>>>    
>>>>>> that I shouldn't have to.  Unless of course this behavior is by design
>>>>>> and not an oversight, and if that's the case- I'd be curious to know why.
>>>>>>      
>>>>> Because the previous job exit failed and it needs to be done again.
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> torqueusers mailing list
>>>>> torqueusers at supercluster.org
>>>>> http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers
>>>>>    
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> torqueusers mailing list
>>>> torqueusers at supercluster.org
>>>> http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers
>>>>    
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> torqueusers mailing list
>>> torqueusers at supercluster.org
>>> http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers
>>>    
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> torqueusers mailing list
>> torqueusers at supercluster.org
>> http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers
>>    
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> torqueusers mailing list
> torqueusers at supercluster.org
> http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.supercluster.org/pipermail/torqueusers/attachments/20100615/1e559a36/attachment.html 


More information about the torqueusers mailing list