I think the idea is that given a script like this one: --------------------------------- cat myenv #!/bin/sh
hostname ulimit -a env|sort echo "done: `date`" --------------------------------- run it as: ssh myhost myenv > LOG.ssh and as srun -p mypartition -w myhost myenv > LOG.srun then compare the logs line by line. /David On 01/24/2013 01:55 AM, Michael Colonno wrote: > > Updating this thread: Iran additional experiments submitting the job > from the node it executes on - same behavior so I think this rules out system > config limits. It seems like the application runs scripts that run other > scripts and somehow SLURM's mode of execution confuses this. Anything else I > can test? > > Thanks, > ~Mike C. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Moe Jette [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:49 PM > To: slurm-dev; Michael Colonno > Subject: Re: [slurm-dev] not executing script(?) > > Compare limits and environment variables for the two different modes of > operation. > > Quoting Michael Colonno<[email protected]>: > >> >> Hi ~ >> >> Getting some odd behavior with SLURM I haven't seen before (2.5.0 on >> CentOS 6.3 x64 though I don't think any of that matters for this >> issue). I'm trying to run a code which launches from a bash script >> (commercial code, we didn't write it). If I ssh to a node and launch >> the code, everything works fine. Syntax looks like this: >> >> >> launch_script input_file >> >> If I paste the exact same command at the end on a srun command the >> job "runs" and I get a copy of the bash script that was supposed to >> have been executed in the directory I launched from (even with >> executable properties) in a file labeled input_file.[bunch of letters >> and numbers]. Syntax looks like: >> >> >>srun -n1 -p whatever launch_script input_file >> >> Scratching my head on this one. Clearly it finds the correct script >> to launch on the correct node but I can't explain the difference in >> behavior between the interactive and SLURM versions. Test cases like >> "hostname" all work fine. Probably not relevant but the parallel codes >> I've compiled into SLURM also launch and run great. >> >> Thanks, >> ~Mike C. >> > >
