Bug 721137 - [RFE] Receive evaluated form of configuration as seen by a running daemon
Summary: [RFE] Receive evaluated form of configuration as seen by a running daemon
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise MRG
Classification: Red Hat
Component: condor
Version: 1.3
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
high
high
Target Milestone: 2.5
: ---
Assignee: Erik Erlandson
QA Contact: Tomas Rusnak
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1045236 1069518
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-07-13 19:56 UTC by Scott Spurrier
Modified: 2018-12-05 15:21 UTC (History)
12 users (show)

Fixed In Version: condor-7.8.9-0.7
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Feature: Enhance condor_config_val to optionally obtain the value of a configuration macro, as evaluated in the context of a daemon's classad. Reason: This capability allows the administrator or user to verify the exact configuration value seen by a daemon. Result (if any): condor_config_val now accepts an optional flag '-evaluate', that causes it to return the value of a configuration macro evaluated with respect to a daemon's classad.
Clone Of:
: 1069518 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-04-28 16:45:38 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Condor 856 0 None None None 2012-09-04 15:20:23 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2014:0440 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Moderate: Red Hat Enterprise MRG Grid 2.5 security, bug fix, and enhancement update 2014-04-28 20:43:37 UTC

Description Scott Spurrier 2011-07-13 19:56:19 UTC
Description of problem:
For any condor configuration value involving floating point math or special booleans like time-of-day calculations, it's important to be able to tell what value the daemon actually thinks it's using. It is needed for negotiator fairshare configuration and startd-side configuration. One specific use case would be the development of a tool to process the output of condor_userprio and compare recorded use with configured fairshares. 

Upstream RFE:
https://condor-wiki.cs.wisc.edu/index.cgi/tktview?tn=856

Comment 1 Erik Erlandson 2012-03-01 21:47:40 UTC
Also of interest:
https://condor-wiki.cs.wisc.edu/index.cgi/tktview?tn=2857

Comment 3 Luigi Toscano 2012-04-23 13:03:31 UTC
Will the implementation be just as described into condor ticket 856 (more information in the verbose output of condor_config_val)? Will it include also ticket 2857, or will it be out of scope for this bug? Any other relevant information?

Comment 9 Erik Erlandson 2014-02-04 17:37:10 UTC
TESTING:
Use the following configuration to exercise feature cases:

======================================================
SCHEDD.TEST_PARAM_1 = 5 * 1
NEGOTIATOR.TEST_PARAM_1 = 5 * 2
STARTD.TEST_PARAM_1 = 5 * 3

SCHEDD.TEST_PARAM_2 = time()
NEGOTIATOR.TEST_PARAM_2 = time() / 2
======================================================

Now spin up a pool, and query daemons for their config values to demonstrate behavior with and without the new -evaluate option:

======================================================
$ condor_config_val -schedd TEST_PARAM_1
5 * 1
$ condor_config_val -schedd TEST_PARAM_1 -eval
5
$ condor_config_val -neg TEST_PARAM_1
5 * 2
$ condor_config_val -neg TEST_PARAM_1 -eval
10
$ condor_config_val -startd TEST_PARAM_1
5 * 3
$ condor_config_val -startd TEST_PARAM_1 -eval
Warning: Classad for startd daemon 'rorschach' is null, will evaluate expressions against empty classad
15
$ condor_config_val -schedd TEST_PARAM_2
time()
$ condor_config_val -schedd TEST_PARAM_2 -eval
1335205018
$ condor_config_val -neg TEST_PARAM_2
time() / 2
$ condor_config_val -neg TEST_PARAM_2 -eval
667602514
=====================================================

Comment 11 Tomas Rusnak 2014-02-25 15:29:56 UTC
Tested on RHEL6 32/64 with CLASSADs from Comment #9 over this set of daemons:

['SCHEDD','NEGOTIATOR','STARTD','COLLECTOR']

Result:

Test Summary  : PASS   #TESTS:43  #FAILS:0

>>> VERIFIED

Comment 13 errata-xmlrpc 2014-04-28 16:45:38 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-0440.html


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.