Hello All,
I set RESTART_PROCD_ON_ERROR to false and then started up the daemons
again. It confirmed my suspicions that the schedd was still not
happy. Actually it seems that it is something called condor_procd
that seems to be the one that is having trouble. The SchedLog has
the following:
===
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) DaemonCore--> id = 15, when =
1242335695, period = 0, handler_descrip=<dc_touch_lock_files>
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) DaemonCore--> id = 6, when =
1242335702, period = 28807, handler_descrip=<DaemonCore::refreshDNS()>
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) DaemonCore--> id = 11, when =
1242393295, period = 86400, handler_descrip=<CleanJobQueue>
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500)
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) leaving DaemonCore NewTimer, id=7
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) DaemonCore Timeout() Complete,
returning 5
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) selector 0xbffff554 resetting
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) selector 0xbffff554 adding fd 8 ()
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) selector 0xbffff554 adding fd 9 ()
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) selector 0xbffff554 adding fd 7 ()
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) selector 0xbffff554 adding fd 10 ()
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) selector 0xbffff554 adding fd 3 ()
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) Calling Handler
<HandleDC_SERVICEWAITPIDS()> for Signal 60009 <DC_SERVICEWAITPIDS>
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) DaemonCore: pid 93501 exited with
status 10, invoking reaper 1 <condor_procd reaper>
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) procd (pid = 93501) exited
unexpectedly with status 10
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) Config 'RESTART_PROCD_ON_ERROR': no
prefix ==> 'False'
5/14 08:14:55 (fd:12) (pid:93500) ERROR "ProcD has failed" at line
599 in file proc_family_proxy.cpp
5/14 08:15:06 (fd:3) (pid:93520) LOGS_USE_TIMESTAMP is undefined,
using default value of False
===
I am not sure what the issue at hand could be?
Ideas or suggestions greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Jim Summers wrote:
Hello All,
Still working on getting 7.2.2 to fly on an OSx Leopard. After
hacking the age, creation_time and sample_time variables use an
unsigned long type, things seemed to get better, but still no joy.
Then using Peter's suggestion of upping the maxprocs that helped
things a lot, but alas, still no joy.
Now the condor_master, schedd, startd are all running but no job
submissions will run. It seems that schedd is generating tons of
log and consuming anywhere from 18-25% of the cpu as reported by top.
I found an OSX crash report message for condor_procd in
/var/log/system.log. Here is the contents of the crash report:
Process: condor_procd [1324]
Path: /usr/local/condor/sbin/condor_procd
Identifier: condor_procd
Version: ??? (???)
Code Type: X86 (Native)
Parent Process: condor_schedd [98692]
Date/Time: 2009-05-13 16:20:23.369 -0500
OS Version: Mac OS X 10.5.6 (9G3553)
Report Version: 6
Exception Type: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (SIGBUS)
Exception Codes: KERN_PROTECTION_FAILURE at 0x0000000000000219
Crashed Thread: 0
Thread 0 Crashed:
0 condor_procd 0x0000633b
ProcFamilyMonitor::snapshot() + 63 (proc_family_monitor.cpp:509)
1 condor_procd 0x000072ce
ProcFamilyMonitor::ProcFamilyMonitor(int, long, int) + 1270
2 condor_procd 0x00002495 main + 451
(procd_main.cpp:337)
3 condor_procd 0x00001e46 start + 54
Thread 0 crashed with X86 Thread State (32-bit):
eax: 0x000001f5 ebx: 0x00006308 ecx: 0xbffff8cc edx: 0x00800224
edi: 0x00000000 esi: 0x00100350 ebp: 0xbffff818 esp: 0xbffff7d0
ss: 0x0000001f efl: 0x00010206 eip: 0x0000633b cs: 0x00000017
ds: 0x0000001f es: 0x0000001f fs: 0x00000000 gs: 0x00000037
cr2: 0x00000219
Binary Images:
0x1000 - 0x12ff0 +condor_procd ??? (???)
<b3c764c9b34f126e5833933112905bc2> /usr/local/condor/sbin/condor_procd
0x8fe00000 - 0x8fe2db43 dyld 97.1 (???)
<9736a715ebabb914fef61680520dc1e0> /usr/lib/dyld
0x9234b000 - 0x92352fe9 libgcc_s.1.dylib ??? (???)
<e280ddf3f5fb3049e674edcb109f389a> /usr/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib
0x936ca000 - 0x936e8fff libresolv.9.dylib ??? (???)
<39f6d8651f3dca7a1534fa04322e6763> /usr/lib/libresolv.9.dylib
0x9372d000 - 0x93894ff3 libSystem.B.dylib ??? (???)
<0ddbaae699690b09239f69dea7d0fbb0> /usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib
0x9487f000 - 0x948dcffb libstdc++.6.dylib ??? (???)
<7d389389a99ce696726cf4c8980cc505> /usr/lib/libstdc++.6.dylib
0x96fa9000 - 0x96fadfff libmathCommon.A.dylib ??? (???)
/usr/lib/system/libmathCommon.A.dylib
0xffff0000 - 0xffff1780 libSystem.B.dylib ??? (???)
/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib
It is beyond my comprehension, but I thought it may help.
I am going to find the code contribution agreement and get that
submitted also. Although at this point I am not confident that the
unsigned long was the right thing to do.
TIA
Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 03:32:20PM -0500, Jim Summers wrote:
Hello All,
I modified the procapi.h file so that all of the age, creation_tim
and sample_time variables use an unsigned long type. That seems
to have fixed the ProcAPI errors that we were seeing.
But now we are seeing the following in SchedLog:
5/11 14:53:38 (fd:7) (pid:57011) In
DaemonCore::Create_Process(/usr/local/condor/sbin/condor_procd,...)
5/11 14:53:38 (fd:7) (pid:57011) PRIV_CONDOR --> PRIV_ROOT at
daemon_core.cpp:6852
5/11 14:53:38 (fd:7) (pid:57011) PRIV_ROOT --> PRIV_CONDOR at
daemon_core.cpp:6885
5/11 14:53:38 (fd:11) (pid:57011) Create Process: fork() failed:
Resource temporarily unavailable (35)
5/11 14:53:38 (fd:7) (pid:57011) start_procd: unable to execute
the procd
5/11 14:53:38 (fd:5) (pid:57011) Close_Pipe(pipe_end=65536) succeeded
5/11 14:53:38 (fd:5) (pid:57011) Close_Pipe(pipe_end=65537) succeeded
5/11 14:53:38 (fd:5) (pid:57011) ERROR "unable to start the ProcD"
at line 620 in file proc_family_proxy.cpp
I am not sure what to do at this point?
Ideas / Suggestions?
Do you have your process limit set really low for your uid?
As for the code changes, you could attach a patch to you message
and we can see if we can apply it. I'll have to scrutinize the patch
closely because even though one might think the age of a process can't
be negative, due to kernel issues a negative age actually could be
calculated, so I'd need to do some inspection.
Have you signed our code contribution agreement?
Thank you.
-pete
_______________________________________________
Condor-devel mailing list
Condor-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/condor-devel
