Alan Cass wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've upgraded to Condor 7.0.0 on our cluster of Student Lab Windows
> PCs but have not been able to have a job complete that takes a 'long'
> amount of time since. The jobs do the computation (since I can see the
> updates being applied to the SIZE in condor_q). As a test I sent a
> node a 7MB file and got it to 'touch' it so it would be automatically
> sent back. This works without a problem. However, if I tell the node
> to 'sleep' for 7 hours before exiting it will never finish,
> communication with the starter fails, the job requeues and this
> behaviour cycles.
>
> I'm worried it might be a problem with the University port scanner.
> Every so often I get an entry like this in the nodes' Starter log (and
> similar in the Master log) file:
>
> 5/21 07:11:34 condor_read(): recv() returned -1, errno = 10054,
> assuming failure reading 4 bytes from <SCANNER_IP:PORT>.
> 5/21 07:11:34 condor_read(): recv() returned -1, errno = 10054,
> assuming failure reading 5 bytes from <SCANNER_IP:PORT>.
> 5/21 07:11:34 IO: Failed to read packet header
> 5/21 07:11:34 DaemonCore: Can't receive command request from
> SCANNER_IP (perhaps a timeout?)
> 5/21 07:11:37 IO: Incoming packet header unrecognized
> 5/21 07:11:37 DaemonCore: Can't receive command request from
> SCANNER_IP (perhaps a timeout?)
> 5/21 07:11:37 condor_read(): Socket closed when trying to read 4 bytes
> from <SCANNER_IP:PORT>
> 5/21 07:11:37 condor_read(): Socket closed when trying to read 5 bytes
> from <SCANNER_IP:PORT>
> 5/21 07:11:37 IO: EOF reading packet header
> 5/21 07:11:37 DaemonCore: Can't receive command request from
> SCANNER_IP (perhaps a timeout?)
> 5/21 07:11:40 Received HTTP GET connection from <SCANNER_IP:PORT> --
> DENIED because ENABLE_WEB_SERVER=FALSE
> 5/21 07:11:40 IO: Incoming packet header unrecognized
> 5/21 07:11:40 DaemonCore: Can't receive command request from
> SCANNER_IP (perhaps a timeout?)
> 5/21 07:11:40 condor_read(): Socket closed when trying to read 4 bytes
> from <SCANNER_IP:PORT>
> 5/21 07:11:40 condor_read(): Socket closed when trying to read 5 bytes
> from <SCANNER_IP:PORT>
> 5/21 07:11:40 IO: EOF reading packet header
> 5/21 07:11:40 DaemonCore: Can't receive command request from
> SCANNER_IP (perhaps a timeout?)
> 5/21 07:11:45 Entering JICShadow::updateShadow()
> 5/21 07:11:45 TokenCache contents:
> condor-reuse-slot1@.
> 5/21 07:11:45 In VanillaProc::PublishUpdateAd()
> 5/21 07:11:45 About to get usage data from ProcD for family with root 4036
> 5/21 07:11:45 Result of "get_usage" operation from ProcD: SUCCESS
> 5/21 07:11:45 Inside OsProc::PublishUpdateAd()
> 5/21 07:11:45 Sent job ClassAd update to startd.
> 5/21 07:11:45 Leaving JICShadow::updateShadow(): success
> 5/21 07:11:49 condor_read(): Socket closed when trying to read 4 bytes
> from <SCANNER_IP:PORT>
> 5/21 07:11:49 condor_read(): Socket closed when trying to read 5 bytes
> from <SCANNER_IP:PORT>
> 5/21 07:11:49 IO: EOF reading packet header
> 5/21 07:11:49 DaemonCore: Can't receive command request from
> SCANNER_IP (perhaps a timeout?)
>
>
> and the shadow eventually bombs out with:
>
> 5/21 23:11:22 (14933.0) (3964): condor_read(): recv() returned -1,
> errno = 10054, assuming failure reading 5 bytes from <EXEC_IP:PORT>.
> 5/21 23:11:22 (14933.0) (3964): IO: Failed to read packet header
> 5/21 23:11:22 (14933.0) (3964): Can no longer talk to condor_starter
> <EXEC_IP:PORT>
> 5/21 23:11:22 (14933.0) (3964): Trying to reconnect to disconnected job
> 5/21 23:11:22 (14933.0) (3964): LastJobLeaseRenewal: 1211370100 Wed
> May 21 21:11:40 2008
> 5/21 23:11:22 (14933.0) (3964): JobLeaseDuration: 1200 seconds
> 5/21 23:11:22 (14933.0) (3964): JobLeaseDuration remaining: EXPIRED!
> 5/21 23:11:22 (14933.0) (3964): Reconnect FAILED: Job disconnected too
> long: JobLeaseDuration (1200 seconds) expired
> 5/21 23:11:22 (14933.0) (3964): **** condor_shadow (condor_SHADOW)
> EXITING WITH STATUS 107
>
>
>
> Is the scanner somehow stealing the starter port and not allowing the
> shadow to get information back? What settings can I give the config to
> get it to completely ignore anything coming from the port scanner? Or
> could it be something else?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------