On 25 May 2012 15:34, Fritz Ferstl <ffer...@univa.com> wrote: > > Am 25.05.2012 um 16:01 schrieb William Hay: > > > > On 25 May 2012 14:45, Fritz Ferstl <ffer...@univa.com> wrote: > >> Hhhhmmm ... would need to look into the code whether it even would >> complain about that for a queued job. It's clear for a running job and if >> that job was running before and got requeued then it would be easily >> explicable, I guess. Might that be the case? >> > I don't think this job has ever run. Indeed it has a fun bug where it > claims it can't run because each PE has only 2 billion slots. Possibly > related. > > > Sounds odd. And you don't want to delete the job because ...? > Belongs to a user we like to get their agreement before we start doing things like that.
> > > It certainly hasn't run in the PE in question as that PE and the > associated queue were only created so I could test something out. The > hosts on which the queue existed > had a very restrictive projects setting. > > > Not sure then unless this is related to some bug condition as you are > indicating above. Can't say more without digging into the code. > > If the PE is really that isolated then stopping the master, removing the > file in the spool area and restarting the master should work and cause no > harm. That is, of course, not an "easy way" to delete a PE as you had asked > initially. > > Yeah I'd thought of that one and a few other less simple ways. I think I'll leave it for now as the PE doesn't cause any harm I was just looking to eliminate config cruft. william
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@gridengine.org https://gridengine.org/mailman/listinfo/users
