<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>RE: [Cook] Cook distributed build with load-balancing system</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: cook-users-bounces+jpendergraft=sjm.com@auug.org.au on behalf of Ryan Thompson<BR>
Sent: Wed 03-Sep-08 13:26<BR>
To: cook-users@auug.org.au<BR>
Subject: [Cook] Cook distributed build with load-balancing system<BR>
<BR>
> I am interested in using the "virtual machine" ability to run a parallel<BR>
> build in our batch compute environment (Platform LSF, similar to Sun Grid,<BR>
> etc.).<BR>
<BR>
>Since this is not rsh or ssh I am not sure how it will work. I think I can<BR>
>point the parallel_rsh variable to a script which does the job submission<BR>
>(similar to using cook_rsh), but I am concerned by this paragraph in<BR>
>"limitations":<BR>
<BR>
>"The exit status of the remote command is not reported in the exit status of<BR>
>the rsh(1) command. There are internal contortions used by Cook to obtain<BR>
>the exit status;"<BR>
<BR>
> Can you provide more information on what Cook will look for to determine the<BR>
> exit status of the command named in "parallel_rsh"?<BR>
<BR>
The paragraph refers to the inability of rsh to correctly report exit status, thus<BR>
the "internal contortions" used by cook were designed to ignore that and work around it.<BR>
Thus you should see the correct exit status, no matter what actually farms out the command.<BR>
<BR>
Jerry Pendergraft voice:651-523-6935<BR>
St.Jude Medical mobil:651-491-0163<BR>
Atrial Fibrillation Division email:jpendergraft@sjm.com<BR>
1350 Energy Lane<BR>
St.Paul, MN 55108<BR>
<BR>
>Thanks,<BR>
>-Ryan Thompson<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>