Thanks Dannon. Looking forward to the resolution. We've got some long workflows (100+ steps) that take days to compute. It takes about 2 minutes to finish queuing tasks, and then I found that they continue to execute even if I interrupt the bioblend thread. I'll add a signal.alarm interrupt to kill the bioblend thread and continue manual monitoring.
-E -Evan Bollig Research Associate | Application Developer | User Support Consultant Minnesota Supercomputing Institute 599 Walter Library 612 624 1447 firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Dannon Baker firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
There is no reason workflow invocation *has* to be synchronous, but that's how galaxy works right now as, mostly, a historical artifact. Workflow scheduling happens inside the web request, and other than bioblend issuing the request in another thread there won't be an implementation w/ no_wait. This is definitely suboptimal, and backgrounded (among other enhancements to scheduling) workflow invocation is something we're working on right now, and it's a high priority.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Evan Bollig email@example.com wrote:
I'm using bioblend to launch a workflow, but i find that the gi.workflows.run_workflow() command does not provide an option for no_wait.
Can anyone provide justification for why this needs to be synchronous?
-Evan Bollig Research Associate | Application Developer | User Support Consultant Minnesota Supercomputing Institute 599 Walter Library 612 624 1447 firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com ___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/
To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/