I'm using qiskit for my University research project but whenever I send a job to run on IBM's Quantum experience, it'll wait in the queue, run, obtain results (in the form of a histogram) but instead of moving to the next part of the code (analyzing the results), it'll join the back of the queue to be ran again. This creates a new job to be ran, obtains results, and joins the back of the queue. Has anyone else experienced a similar issue, or know how to resolve it?
I should state I'm not using any loops in my code (whether for or otherwise), and I'm mainly focused on the chemistry aspect of qiskit (Ground State Eigen Solvers and VQEUCCSDFactory)
Related
My job is running since more than 24 hours.When I checked, what is actually going on using this (how to know status of currently running jobs); its showing its still running. So is there any way to check, by what approximate time, this would complete? Is there any logic that has already implemented by Microsoft for this, like we have file transfer approximate time show?
There is no way to see an estimate of when a job will finish. The closest you can get is to put logging in that tells you when each task is started/completed (using the built in SSIS logging provider).
Logging to table or file, you can then check progress there and that will give you an indication how far through the job you are (and based off of your own knowledge of the package, you may be able to estimate how long until it will be finished)
I have Cron job which runs every 30mins and queues a task to be executed on a Dynamic Backend (B2).
The Backend loops and does some work, then sleeps for few minutes and then repeats the work till finally the complete job is over after few hours, after which the Backend shuts down. (Till the backend is running, no new Task is actioned)
Now two days in a row, I have seen my Backend stop abruptly (after 1.5hrs) with the familiar "Process terminated because the backend took too long to shutdown.". I have searched through the forums but could not identify WHY exactly my backend shuts down (apart from the theoretical list of reasons that Appengine doc provides). I have checked my DS/Memcache operations, Memory and all looks normal. I upgraded my backend from B1 to B2, but no luck.
Q1. Does anybody know how to debug this issue further?
Q2. Even after this I wish that the job should be completed. If I register a shutdown hook LifecycleManager.getInstance().setShutdownHook(), what is a good way to ensure that the job is resumed (considering that the Cron job could be still 29minutes away from next execution, and I want the job to do its stuff every 2 minutes)
Yes the same has happened to me. I have a backend that uses constant memory and cpu. Apengine shuts it down periodically, usually after 15min but sometimes before that. The docs say that it may get shut down without explanation, it will notify the backend and then shut it down.
You are supposed to handle it gracefully which means it can work by chunks and restart its work. If you. Ant divide the work in chunks dont use backends, use a compute engine instance.
For your first question you'd have to take a closer look at the logs, app engine does promise to indicate shutdown behaviour through a request to /_ah/stop so that would give more insights at the issue.
Now for your second question, stick with app engine's suggestions of having more than one instance. In your case you could move away from looping through some entity infinitely and going to sleep state. Instead have a cron which looks up a task queue and process a single task. If that's processed successfully mark it so somewhere or do so by removing it from the queue after you're done processing it. So in case of failures that task would still be available to be processed unless its marked successful and your additional instances can take over.
I have an asp.net-mvc website and people manage a list of projects. Based on some algorithm, I can tell if a project is out of date. When a user logs in, i want it to show the number of stale projects (similar to when i see a number of updates in the inbox).
The algorithm to calculate stale projects is kind of slow so if everytime a user logs in, i have to:
Run a query for all project where they are the owner
Run the IsStale() algorithm
Display the count where IsStale = true
My guess is that will be real slow. Also, on everything project write, i would have to recalculate the above to see if changed.
Another idea i had was to create a table and run a job everything minutes to calculate stale projects and store the latest count in this metrics table. Then just query that when users log in. The issue there is I still have to keep that table in sync and if it only recalcs once every minute, if people update projects, it won't change the value until after a minute.
Any idea for a fast, scalable way to support this inbox concept to alert users of number of items to review ??
The first step is always proper requirement analysis. Let's assume I'm a Project Manager. I log in to the system and it displays my only project as on time. A developer comes to my office an tells me there is a delay in his activity. I select the developer's activity and change its duration. The system still displays my project as on time, so I happily leave work.
How do you think I would feel if I receive a phone call at 3:00 AM from the client asking me for an explanation of why the project is no longer on time? Obviously, quite surprised, because the system didn't warn me in any way. Why did that happen? Because I had to wait 30 seconds (why not only 1 second?) for the next run of a scheduled job to update the project status.
That just can't be a solution. A warning must be sent immediately to the user, even if it takes 30 seconds to run the IsStale() process. Show the user a loading... image or anything else, but make sure the user has accurate data.
Now, regarding the implementation, nothing can be done to run away from the previous issue: you will have to run that process when something that affects some due date changes. However, what you can do is not unnecessarily run that process. For example, you mentioned that you could run it whenever the user logs in. What if 2 or more users log in and see the same project and don't change anything? It would be unnecessary to run the process twice.
Whatsmore, if you make sure the process is run when the user updates the project, you won't need to run the process at any other time. In conclusion, this schema has the following advantages and disadvantages compared to the "polling" solution:
Advantages
No scheduled job
No unneeded process runs (this is arguable because you could set a dirty flag on the project and only run it if it is true)
No unneeded queries of the dirty value
The user will always be informed of the current and real state of the project (which is by far, the most important item to address in any solution provided)
Disadvantages
If a user updates a project and then upates it again in a matter of seconds the process would be run twice (in the polling schema the process might not even be run once in that period, depending on the frequency it has been scheduled)
The user who updates the project will have to wait for the process to finish
Changing to how you implement the notification system in a similar way to StackOverflow, that's quite a different question. I guess you have a many-to-many relationship with users and projects. The simplest solution would be adding a single attribute to the relationship between those entities (the middle table):
Cardinalities: A user has many projects. A project has many users
That way when you run the process you should update each user's Has_pending_notifications with the new result. For example, if a user updates a project and it is no longer on time then you should set to true all users Has_pending_notifications field so that they're aware of the situation. Similarly, set it to false when the project is on time (I understand you just want to make sure the notifications are displayed when the project is no longer on time).
Taking StackOverflow's example, when a user reads a notification you should set the flag to false. Make sure you don't use timestamps to guess if a user has read a notification: logging in doesn't mean reading notifications.
Finally, if the notification itself is complex enough, you can move it away from the relationship between users and projects and go for something like this:
Cardinalities: A user has many projects. A project has many users. A user has many notifications. A notifications has one user. A project has many notifications. A notification has one project.
I hope something I've said has made sense, or give you some other better idea :)
You can do as follows:
To each user record add a datetime field sayng the last time the slow computation was done. Call it LastDate.
To each project add a boolean to say if it has to be listed. Call it: Selected
When you run the Slow procedure set you update the Selected fileds
Now when the user logs if LastDate is enough close to now you use the results of the last slow computation and just take all project with Selected true. Otherwise yourun again the slow computation.
The above procedure is optimal, becuase it re-compute the slow procedure ONLY IF ACTUALLY NEEDED, while running a procedure at fixed intervals of time...has the risk of wasting time because maybe the user will neber use the result of a computation.
Make a field "stale".
Run a SQL statement that updates stale=1 with all records where stale=0 AND (that algorithm returns true).
Then run a SQL statement that selects all records where stale=1.
The reason this will work fast is because SQL parsers, like PHP, shouldn't do the second half of the AND statement if the first half returns true, making it a very fast run through the whole list, checking all the records, trying to make them stale IF NOT already stale. If it's already stale, the algorithm won't be executed, saving you time. If it's not, the algorithm will be run to see if it's become stale, and then stale will be set to 1.
The second query then just returns all the stale records where stale=1.
You can do this:
In the database change the timestamp every time a project is accessed by the user.
When the user logs in, pull all their projects. Check the timestamp and compare it with with today's date, if it's older than n-days, add it to the stale list. I don't believe that comparing dates will result in any slow logic.
I think the fundamental questions need to be resolved before you think about databases and code. The primary of these is: "Why is IsStale() slow?"
From comments elsewhere it is clear that the concept that this is slow is non-negotiable. Is this computation out of your hands? Are the results resistant to caching? What level of change triggers the re-computation.
Having written scheduling systems in the past, there are two types of changes: those that can happen within the slack and those that cause cascading schedule changes. Likewise, there are two types of rebuilds: total and local. Total rebuilds are obvious; local rebuilds try to minimize "damage" to other scheduled resources.
Here is the crux of the matter: if you have total rebuild on every update, you could be looking at 30 minute lags from the time of the change to the time that the schedule is stable. (I'm basing this on my experience with an ERP system's rebuild time with a very complex workload).
If the reality of your system is that such tasks take 30 minutes, having a design goal of instant gratification for your users is contrary to the ground truth of the matter. However, you may be able to detect schedule inconsistency far faster than the rebuild. In that case you could show the user "schedule has been overrun, recomputing new end times" or something similar... but I suspect that if you have a lot of schedule changes being entered by different users at the same time the system would degrade into one continuous display of that notice. However, you at least gain the advantage that you could batch changes happening over a period of time for the next rebuild.
It is for this reason that most of the scheduling problems I have seen don't actually do real time re-computations. In the context of the ERP situation there is a schedule master who is responsible for the scheduling of the shop floor and any changes get funneled through them. The "master" schedule was regenerated prior to each shift (shifts were 12 hours, so twice a day) and during the shift delays were worked in via "local" modifications that did not shuffle the master schedule until the next 12 hour block.
In a much simpler situation (software design) the schedule was updated once a day in response to the day's progress reporting. Bad news was delivered during the next morning's scrum, along with the updated schedule.
Making a long story short, I'm thinking that perhaps this is an "unask the question" moment, where the assumption needs to be challenged. If the re-computation is large enough that continuous updates are impractical, then aligning expectations with reality is in order. Either the algorithm needs work (optimizing for local changes), the hardware farm needs expansion or the timing of expectations of "truth" needs to be recalibrated.
A more refined answer would frankly require more details than "just assume an expensive process" because the proper points of attack on that process are impossible to know.
I am trying to write a program which will be run in batch on AS400. This program is going to write a record into a file to reflect its processing status, say, when it is just submitted it adds a record saying it is currently running, and when it is done it updates the same record saying it has finished. If I want to submit this program into batch for multiple times, what is the best way to cope with this type of simultaneous file access to increase the efficiency? I don't want a job to lock the whole file and stops others from updating it in the same time. It can lock the record it needs and leave the rest to others. How to achieve this? RPGLE or QMQRY? Or any other methods?
RPG will not lock the entire file, only the record.
Personally, I'd recommend SQL for (pretty much) all file access, even through RPG. IBM hasn't been updating their Native I/O for a while, just concentrating on the SQL side of things.
Because, during normal use, record locks in RPG are released once the write or update has been performed, you should probably just have your SQL run WITH NC (no commit). You need a way to tie a processing job with the data it's processing anyways (assuming stuff is long-running enough that things are in files outside of QTEMP) - you want to be able to pick up where you left off, if your job dies (so, you can't rely on holding the lock as a control mechanism). So don't forget that you're going to need some sort of monitor job (that can at least report the status, if not resubmit things - look at the QUSRJOBI API).
If you're doing this because you're using all Native I/O, and processing huge sets of data (not huge, processor intensive calculations), consider re-writing everything to SQL. Seriously. You can get way better performance - we've taken a process that used to run for 25+ hours, to something that runs in 2.5ish.
i'm using C++ managed 2010 for designing a GUI in a form.h file. The GUI acts as a master querying data streaming from slave card.
Pressing a button a function (in the ApplicationIO.cpp file) is called in which 2 threads are created by using API win32 (CREATETHREAD(...)): the former is for handling data streaming, and the latter is for data parsing and data monitoring on real time grpah on the GUI.
The project has two different behaviour: if it starts in debugging mode it is able to update GUI controls as textbox (using invoke) and graph during data straming, contrariwise when it starts without debugging no data appears in the textbox, and data are shown very slowly on the chart.
has anyone ever addressed a similar problem? Any suggestion, please?
A pretty classic mistake is to use Control::Begin/Invoke() too often. You'll flood the UI thread with delegate invoke requests. UI updates tend to be expensive, you can easily get into a state where the message loop doesn't get around to doing its low-priority duties. Like painting. This happens easily, invoking more than a thousand times per second is the danger zone, depending on how much time is spent by the delegate targets.
You solve this by sending updates at a realistic rate, one that takes advantage of the ability of the human eye to distinguish them. At 25 times per second, the updates turn into a blur, updating it any faster is just a waste of cpu cycles. Which leaves lots of time for the UI thread to do what it needs to do.
This might still not be sufficiently slow when the updates are expensive. At which point you'll need to skip updates or throttle the worker thread. Note that Invoke() automatically throttles, BeginInvoke() doesn't.