What I'd LOVE to see in SGI's NQS...

[Andrew Torda]

In article <1991Mar14.073500.11533 at s1.msi.umn.edu>,
molenda at s1.msi.umn.edu (Jason Molenda) writes:
> I know a new release of NQS will be coming out from SGI some time
(soon?)
> and I would like to post my one humble recommendation that I would
> kill to see implemented.

I am sorry to start whinging again, but seeing anyone mention sgi's nqs
makes me angry.
Have you used nqs on a convex ? cray ?
They can talk to each other. We have nqs from Sterling software on our
suns. It also talks to nqs on the convex and cray (no problems
submitting
jobs remotely, querying remote queues etc...)

Now, which is the one port of nqs which does not talk to any other ?
SGI.

Repeatededly querying SGI about this, nobody has explained what
performance or extra functions brought about this networking
incompatibility.

Thus, if the incompatibility is not necessary or useful, it falls into
the
category of totally gratuitous incompatibility.

I appreciate that this complaint of mine is not the same as the
original
posting about the syntax for qmgr, but the current SGI product has more
serious problems than merely clumsy syntax (which is at least common
across the different platforms that one might have to manage).

Also, bear in mind that IBM will be releasing an official port of nqs
to their wonder workstations, so this can be added to the list of
machines
which SGI's nqs can not talk to.

--
Andrew Torda, ETH, Zurich