 |
 |
Thanks for your help, Stuart. > The WMS gives the 'BrokerHelper: no compatible resources' messages when the set > of Requirements [0] stanza of the JDL specifies a set of requirements that is not met > by any of the CE's. Yes. But I don't need to worry about any CE but mine. So, to me, when this message occurs, it means the JDL specifies a set of requirements that is not met by YOUR CE so there is something wrong with it, but I won't tell you what it is! > So the set of requirements is specified in the JDL, and therefore it shouldn't be complicated > to see what's being requested. Problem is that I have no access to the JDL of any test. The person who submitted the job does, but I just look after the CE. I want to see what the job needed. Then I could compare it to the resources my CE provides, and if some resource is missing, I will be able to tell which it is. > But when I do need to, I use glite-wms-job-list-match, and delete one clause from > the Requirements at a time, until I find the one that's the problem. Generally, it's not > likely to be CPU/wall time limits, unless they are excessively long, so I start with the > other Requirements. I can't do that because I have no access to the info on the WMS for the job I have no rights. > However, I agree that it would be good if there was a way to get the WMS > to describe the details of the matching process better, for diagnosing these things. > It wouldn't be too tricky to write a wrapper around job-list-match, taking each > component of the Requirements at a time, and counting the matching resources for > each stanza in it, and that might give an idea of where the problem lies. If there's > interest, I can see if I can whip something up? That would be good. Let's gauge the interest. There are architectural issues to consider as well. Should we have the text of the SAM/nagios test available on-line? Should it be in the test results? In any case, the requirements of tests of site infrastructure elements (CEs, SEs ...) should me obvious so that sites can use the results as (well...) a test! Cheers, Steve