Balazs, Morris and all, Concerning the last OGF PGI telephone conference on 05 August 2009 : Meeting notes ------------- I see NO meeting notes about this telephone conference at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/discussion/do/listTopics/projects.pgi-wg/discu... So I am working with my own (fragmentary) notes. For all future OGF PGI telephone conferences, is it possible that a secretary or a chair takes meeting notes, then writes them down in a understandable form, and publish them at the above mentioned page ? Creation of a 'Submitted:Hold' substate ? ----------------------------------------- First, as general rules, I consider that : - In order to AVOID keeping (potentially large) grid resources while NOT computing, grid Jobs should be designed to be processed completely automatically, with NO provision for 'Hold' substates, - A grid Job needing many 'Hold' substates can NOT be handled by an automatic Submitter, but should be submitted by a human grid User as an 'Interactive Job', as described for example at https://edms.cern.ch/file/722398//gLite-3-UserGuide.html#SECTION000844000000... Someone asked for the creation of a 'Hold' substate inside the 'Submitted' state, like inside other states. This 'Submitted:Hold' substate would make sense only if the Job Submitter could perform an operation on this substate. In order to request such an operation, the Job Submitter needs the Jobid (or Job EPR). This Jobid (or Job EPR) is guaranteed to be allocated by the Execution Service only at the END of the 'Submitted' state, but NOT before. Therefore, I consider that the 'Submitted' state can NOT contain a 'Hold' substate. If anyone thinks otherwise, can he/she please present a convincing Use Case ? Precisions about the 'Finished with Success or Error' state ----------------------------------------------------------- Someone asked that the 'Error' case of the 'Finished with Success or Error' state should be moved to the 'Failed' state. In fact, inside the current Job State Model, a Job reaches the 'Finished with Success or Error' state if and only if it successively reached the end of following states, without failure or cancellation at the JOB level : - 'Pre-processing' - 'Delegated', whatever the Application result : - Success = Application return code equal to zero - Error = Application return code different of zero - 'Post-processing' Inside the 'Finished with Success or Error' state : - Success means 'Application return code was equal to zero', - Error means 'Application return code was different of zero'. I copied this behavior from the Job State Model of 'gLite', where the 'Done' state contains both the 'Success' and 'Exit Code !=0' cases, as can be seen in the 'bookkeeping information' at https://edms.cern.ch/file/722398//gLite-3-UserGuide.html#SECTION000841000000... I consider this behavior design, and the strong separation between the 'Failed' and 'Finished with Success or Error' states, as fully justified by following reasons : - Whenever a Job reaches the 'Failed' state, the grid Execution Service detected an unrecoverable inconsistency at the JOB level. Therefore, the Job output sandbox and the post-processed Application output files can potentially be NOT consistent and NOT even accessible by the Job Submitter. In order to investigate the Job failure, the grid User then needs some grid knowledge (and often experience and expertise) to retrieve and interpret : - the Job failure code and message, - the Job logging and bookkeeping, in comparison with the Job description. This 'grid level' investigation can sometimes prove that the cause of the Job failure came from the Application, but is ALWAYS necessary. - Whenever a Job reaches the 'Finished with Success or Error' state, the grid Execution Service could create the Job output sandbox, and perform post-processing on Application output files, WITHOUT detecting any unrecoverable inconsistency at the JOB level. Therefore, the Job output sandbox, and the post-processed Application output files, can be supposed to be consistent and easily accessible by the Job Submitter. On a non-zero return code of the Application, the grid User : - first has to look (WITHOUT needing any grid knowledge) at the Job output sandbox and at the post-processed Application output files for an Application problem, - before, if necessary, using grid knowledge (and often experience and expertise) to provide any evidence that the Application error was caused by a faulty Job description, the Batch system, or the grid Execution Service. As a summary, I consider that the 'Error' case of the 'Finished with Success or Error' state should be kept as it is, and NOT be moved to the 'Failed' state. If anyone thinks otherwise, can he/she please present convincing reasons ? Strawman Rendering ------------------ I will work on the ODT version of 'Strawman Rendering' at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15628?nav=1 in order to : - include the above precisions on states, - include the 'Types of grid Jobs' section of my 'PGI Execution Service Overview' document, - check consistency, and present the relationships between the operations described in chapter 2 'Interface: Execution Port-Type' and the different states of the different types of grid Jobs. Joining +9900827049931906 (plus perhaps Skype typing) on Friday 14 August 2009 at 16h CET. Best regards. ----------------------------------------------------- Etienne URBAH LAL, Univ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS Bat 200 91898 ORSAY France Tel: +33 1 64 46 84 87 Skype: etienne.urbah Mob: +33 6 22 30 53 27 mailto:urbah@lal.in2p3.fr -----------------------------------------------------