Re: [ptp-dev] Updated Resource Manager Schema

["Albert L. Rossi" <arossi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave,

If we go with an ssh client-side exec of the submission, parsing stdout is the only way to get the batch id (reliably) if it is through a scheduler.  The pattern-matching is what I had the tokenization for.  This depends unfortunately on how the sysadmins set up the submission script.  

We can add a different section, perhaps, to deal with stdout.  In the case of a scheduler, for instance, the stdout from the ssh call should not go to the screen (if there is an error, it should perhaps), but the stdout from the job can.

I think that the handling of stdout right now is not well-defined enough to set this in stone, but as I said, we were leaning towards doing all this on the client end.  

Al
----- Dave Wootton <dwootton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Greg
> If I'm understanding this correctly, that means some job notifications are 
> sent to the client in the stdout stream. Does this assume a proxy process 
> on the remote side to set up the is this exppected to be handled by 
> whatever command invokes the application?
> 
> Is stdout the right place to be sending this information? I think that 
> implies that there has to be some tag generated that can be pattern 
> matched in the stdout stream to get this information and not accidentally 
> match some random data generated by the application.
> 
> Does there need to be some specification in Al's schema to indicate that 
> stdout is routed to both a parser and to a console viewer?
> 
> Finally, if stdout is sent to an Eclipse console viewer, what does the 
> viewer need to know in order to filter this data out so the user doesn't 
> see it?
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Re: [ptp-dev] Updated Resource Manager Schema
> 
> Greg Watson 
> to:
> Parallel Tools Platform general developers
> 01/18/2011 10:11 AM
> 
> 
> Sent by:
> ptp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Please respond to Parallel Tools Platform general developers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want the interactive job to show up in the jobs view and be able to 
> be terminated by the user then it will need a parser.
> 
> Greg
> 
> On Jan 17, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Albert L. Rossi wrote:
> 
> > 
> >>> 3) Should the parsers element have a minOccurs specification? I'm 
> thinking 
> >>> I may not always want to process stdout or stderr with any parser 
> logic.
> >> 
> >> Again, my reasoning was that you will always need at least one to 
> capture the JobId from a run command.
> >> 
> > Oh, wait, I suppose interactive jobs don't need a job id parsers.  So 
> yes, let's set this to minOccurs=0.
> > _______________________________________________
> > ptp-dev mailing list
> > ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ptp-dev mailing list
> ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev
>