Re: inter-torque/pbs-server protocol compatibility

On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 01:56:11PM +0000, David Golden alleged:
> Given earlier:
> http://www.supercluster.org/pipermail/torqueusers/2006-January/002947.html
> 
> raising vaguely related question:
> 
> Is there commitment to network protocol compatibility
> between  different patchlevels,minor versions,major versions
> of torque for
> mom<->server 
> server<->server  (routing queues!)
> server<->sheduler

Don't forget client<->server!

 
> I can see why people devving the relatively rapidly developing torque 
> tree might like to keep protocol extension options open for various 
> improvements, just wondering to what extent we should keep clusters 
> torque versions synchronised if we're using routing queues between 
> them is all.  Obviously, it's probably a good idea to have most software
> on clusters you're routing between matched fairly closely _anyway_,
> but I'm wondering how much leeway there is.
> 
> (presently we've got a couple with different minor version
> numbers, and they seem to work okay, but that could be blind 
> luck. Has ramifications for the strategy we use for grid-enabling
> our clusters...)

So far, we've had 100% compatibility since the first TORQUE releases.
We've never made any protocol changes and everything works fine.

Clearly there are features and fixes that would require the correct "end
points" to be updated.  But everything should always work between
different versions of TORQUE.

Though we are starting to hit limits.  Some features I'd like to add
can't be done while maintaining compatibility.  So we might see our
first protocol changes this year.  Of course, every effort towards
backwards compat will be made.

-- 
Garrick Staples, Linux/HPCC Administrator
University of Southern California

pgpTFK5kGwrHD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
torqueusers mailing list
torqueusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers