Brian Barrett wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2004, at 11:55 AM, Phil Ehrens wrote:
>
> >Jeff Squyres wrote:
> >>On Sep 21, 2004, at 12:08 PM, Phil Ehrens wrote:
> >>
> >>>[snipped]
> >>>Ah. No. We use a stable of 16 LAM users named search01 - search16.
> >>>After a machine reboot there may be a new lamd running with the pid
> >>>found in user search05's lam-killfile, but it in fact is user
> >>>search03's lamd. So when lamboot runs for user search05, the tkill
> >>>will fail.
> >>
> >>Ahh... now I understand. Yes, this is a scenario that we did not
> >>anticipate -- 7.1 won't handle it any better than 7.0. :-\
> >
> >I am so disappointed... shame grips me like a giant clam.
> >
> >>Lemme investigate this; it may not be hard to fix.
> >
> >Great! Thanks!
>
> Ok, I have a quick fix that I think makes sense. The cause of the
> failure in lamboot was that tkill was sending something out on stderr,
> rather than just being quiet when it got a permission denied for trying
> to kill another user's process. We now don't emit anything on stderr
> in that case, so life should be good.
>
> I've attached a patch against tkill.c that should apply to the 7.0.x
> tree and 7.1. Can you give it a shot and see if it works for you?
> I've committed the change into both the LAM svn trunk and 7.1 branch,
> so it will sneak into LAM 7.1.1, whenever that happens.
Hi Brian,
That looks great!
I tested it against 7.0.6 in a mocked-up configuration on
my workstation, and it seems to do the right thing.
Thanks!!
Phil
--
Phil Ehrens <pehrens_at_[hidden]>| Fun stuff:
The LIGO Laboratory, MS 18-34 | http://www.ralphmag.org
California Institute of Technology | http://www.yellow5.com
1200 East California Blvd. | http://www.total.net/~fishnet/
Pasadena, CA 91125 USA | http://slashdot.org
Phone:(626)395-8518 Fax:(626)793-9744 | http://kame56.homepage.com
|
