> > I think the sequence or hiarchy of the nets are something of high importance to a > > batch schedular: job that should not start untill other(s) are finished. Or job > > Wouldn't all those dependencies be solved by "pulling" on the data-flow? or am I > missing something? > consider this structure: >--O1 \ >---O2--O5---O6--> / / >--O3 / / O4/ Where the O's are the nodes. Once could execute on dataflow basis, so O1,2 & 3 will run, and before O5 O4 has to run, so O5 will stall untill O4 is ready. As good batching will run O4 before O5 is stalled. But I must admit the dataflow is 90% of the batch logic. > > > termintion once certain situations occure. I've worked a lot with JCL, job control > > language, with is the scripting language of IBM mainfraimes. A very typical aspect > > of jcl is that it's laking iterations and jumps. > > So no for\next until\while stuff and no goto's. Does Loci depends upon those or > > Loops are supported by Overflow through the "Iterator" (which derives from the > subnet). I'm also using some kind of "checkpointing" in Overflow for very long > jobs (a couple days of processing), such as neural network training. Now, about > goto's, I'm strongly against them in a data-flow type of processing. > > > suggest we'll ALWAYS use timeouts on jobs and use triggering or stalling as the > > only scheduling primals. > > I'm only talking about SUBNET batching, inside those at PL level nothing will > > change. > > I think most (though not all) of this is likely to be simpler if implemented in > the PL. You did take cpu load, ram\HD space usage etc into account already? > > P.S. Brad and I have ran into some problems with the antialiased gnome canvas as > used in Overflow (But everything now *compiles* on FreeBSD). Has anyone compiled > Overflow on something else than Mandrake 7.0 and FreeBSD? I had it compiling on my slackware 7.0 with gcc 2.95.x manually installed. But I reinstalled slack :(