[torqueusers] epilogue script runs twice

Jeremy Enos jenos at ncsa.uiuc.edu
Thu Mar 25 12:09:41 MDT 2010


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
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.supercluster.org/pipermail/torqueusers/attachments/20100325/182052a6/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the torqueusers mailing list