I agree - the file transfer state models are needed for SAGA. We don't have any actions on these states anyway. Andre. Quoting [Christopher Smith] (Feb 11 2006):
Sure.
As mentioned ... I think maybe supporting a subset of BES is ok. Much of the state model wrt file transfer state modelling I think is not required for SAGA.
-- Chris
On 10/2/06 18:46, "Andre Merzky"
wrote: Ok, then I'll do that in the strawman. I would appreciate if you could glance over it after commit, for a sanity check.
Thanks, Andre.
Quoting [Christopher Smith] (Feb 11 2006):
It makes sense to keep the state models in sync.
-- Chris
On 10/2/06 18:26, "Andre Merzky"
wrote: Quoting [Christopher Smith] (Feb 11 2006):
What I meant by that comment is that where it is a subset, it should reflect the BES terminology. I think that the number of states represented is enough already. ;-)
Would it make sense to just copy the BES state diagram?
It did not exist when we (== you ;-) drafted the SAGA job states - if it would have been around then, we might have had copied it already.
Apart from the SystemXXX/UserXXX states, and from Hold, it is not that much different from the SAGA model anyway.
Cheers, Andre.
-- Chris
On 10/2/06 17:30, "Andre Merzky"
wrote: Hi Chris,
many thanks for the answers! :-)
> By the way ... I believe that the state diagram should at least be a > subset > of the BES state diagram ... we should adopt the same names.
I agree, kind of - I would say that the SAGA job state diagram should at _most_ be subset of the BES state diagram. It could be _S_implier :-)
Cheers, Andre.
Quoting [Christopher Smith] (Feb 10 2006): > Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:41:18 -0800 > Subject: Re: [saga-rg] job states... > From: Christopher Smith
> To: Simple API for Grid Applications WG > > On 4/2/06 11:18, "Andre Merzky" wrote: > > Ok ... I'll try to answer these, at least from my viewpoint. > >> >> I think that diagram is wrong, isn't it? Well, here are my >> questions: >> >> - if we submit a job, its immediately Queued - is that >> right? Should it be pending before (e.g. as long as the >> queuing request travels the middleware layers)? >> > To me, Queued is the same as Pending. Pending is probably a better word > for > this. Can't remember where the Queued name came from, as LSF uses PEND. > >> - can the hold and suspend states reached only from >> 'Running', or from elsewhere as well? >> > You can only go into a Hold state from Pending, I think, or directly into > Hold on submission. > >> - What is the difference between 'Hold' and 'Suspend'? >> > A Hold state tells the scheduler/broker not to consider this job for > scheduling/dispatch until the hold is explicitly released. > >> - Are there signals defined (apart from KILL) which shange >> the job state? I guess that is not as simple as saying >> SUSP does suspend - that state is probably defined by >> the scheduler, not by the OS... >> > Right ... this is implementation dependent on the mechanism used to > suspend > a job (might be a signal, might be some other mechanism). What is > important > is that there is an operation to initiate the state transition. > >> - What is the use case for distinguishing between UserHold >> and SystemHold, or between UserSuspend and >> SystemSuspend? >> > If I preempt workload, the system will put it into a SystemSuspend state > that a user cannot cause a switch out of, otherwise a system may become > oversubscribed due to the preempted and preempting jobs running at the > same > time. A UserSuspend can be entered and exited by the user, and is often > used > to hold processing to check progress, etc. > > > By the way ... I believe that the state diagram should at least be a > subset > of the BES state diagram ... we should adopt the same names. > > -- Chris
-- "So much time, so little to do..." -- Garfield