Also, being able to poll for the number of jobs would be ideal because even after the counter is set in place, the current job number will not necessarily start at 0, so I will need a way to get the starting number of jobs anyway.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 1:10 PM, K Yoshimoto <[email protected]> wrote: > > The point is that the policy limit could change at any time. > If it does, and there is a mismatch in the limit at the resource > and the limit in Airavata, bad things will happen. Schedulers > will vary in the format of their policy limit output, so it's > more reliable to monitor actual job submissions and handle failures. > Remember that it's possible for job limits to vary for a single > resource not only on queue name, but on job characteristics, > such as allocation account, core count, wall clock limit, etc. > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 12:53:22PM -0400, Raminderjeet Singh wrote: > > Usually these limits are set as a policy by the resource provider and do > > not change usually. As long as we have a place holder to configure/change > > it in Airavata for a user/gateway, we don't need to get it from a > resource. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:33 PM, John Weachock <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I think it would be best for us to not maintain our own record of the > job > > > limit - we need to remember that jobs will be submitted to these > resources > > > using the community accounts through other methods as well. I think I > > > remember someone mentioning that it would be ideal to poll the > resources > > > for their limits - can anyone confirm that we can do this? > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Douglas Chau <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hmm @shameera, that's very true. Perhaps, we can store the submission > > >> requests in registry. In the event that orchestrator goes down we can > > >> recover them through registry afterwards. > > >> > > >> @Yoshimito, I didn't think about that - will take it into > > >> consideration.Thanks for the insight! > > >> > > >> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:11 PM, K Yoshimoto <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> I think you also want to put in a check for successful submission, > > >>> then take appropriate action on failed submission. It can be > > >>> difficult to keep the submission limit up-to-date. > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:03:46AM -0400, Douglas Chau wrote: > > >>> > Hey Devs, > > >>> > > > >>> > Just wanted to get some input on our to plan to implement the queue > > >>> > throttling feature. > > >>> > > > >>> > Batch Queue Throttling: > > >>> > - in Orchestrator, the current submit() function in > > >>> GFACPassiveJobSubmitter > > >>> > publishes jobs to rabbitmq immediately > > >>> > - instead of publishing immediately we should pass the messages to > a > > >>> new > > >>> > component, call it BatchQueueClass. > > >>> > - we need a new component BatchQueueClass to periodically check to > see > > >>> when > > >>> > we can unload jobs to submit > > >>> > > > >>> > Adding BatchQueueClass > > >>> > - setup a new table(s) to contain compute resource names and their > > >>> > corresponding queues' current job numbers and maximum job limits > > >>> > - data models in airavata have information on maximum job > submission > > >>> limits > > >>> > for a queue but no data on how many jobs are currently running > > >>> > - the current job number will effectively act as a counter, which > will > > >>> be > > >>> > incremented when a job is submitted, and when a job is completed > > >>> > - once that is done, BatchQueueClass needs to periodically check > new > > >>> table > > >>> > to see if the user's requested queue's current job number < queue > job > > >>> > limit. If it is then we can pop jobs off and submit them until we > hit > > >>> the > > >>> > job limit; if not, then we wait until the we're under the job > limit. > > >>> > > > >>> > How does this sound? > > >>> > > > >>> > Doug > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > >
