Re: [HTCondor-users] purpose of SHADOW_WORKLIFE option

[Brian Bockelman <bbockelm@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

There's no point to have shadow worklife shorter than the claim, right?

Are there any strange effects if shadow worklife is significantly longer than claim worklife?

B

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 27, 2014, at 1:27 PM, "John (TJ) Knoeller" <johnkn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> There is no good reason for it to be anything other than forever.
> I suspect that the value was set to be conservative when the feature of shadow re-use was first added.
> We will be changing the default for SHADOW_WORKLIFE to something more reasonable for the next development release.
> -tj
> 
>> On 3/26/2014 4:23 AM, Pek Daniel wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Is there any practical use case which requires setting SHADOW_WORKLIFE
>> other than "infinite"? What's the point of not reusing shadow
>> processes forever? Is there any memory leak in it which requires this
>> periodical "restart"?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
>> _______________________________________________
>> HTCondor-users mailing list
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to htcondor-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with a
>> subject: Unsubscribe
>> You can also unsubscribe by visiting
>> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/htcondor-users
>> 
>> The archives can be found at:
>> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/archive/htcondor-users/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> HTCondor-users mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send a message to htcondor-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with a
> subject: Unsubscribe
> You can also unsubscribe by visiting
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/htcondor-users
> 
> The archives can be found at:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/archive/htcondor-users/