[GE users] Does nice always work when determining which waiti ng job to assign to a node first?

Marconnet, James E Mr /Computer Sciences Corporation james.marconnet at smdc.army.mil
Tue Apr 12 18:40:47 BST 2005


Bummer, we thought the nice value would affect the order in which waiting
jobs were assigned to the nodes. Apparently not so.

I searched the Admin Manual on seq_no, and I did not see where that could be
used unless we wanted to give up sorting by load level to balance out the
load on the nodes instead of filling up the first node completely, then the
next one fully, etc. And it's not at all clear how this would be used
anyway. Anyone able to clarify it?

Reading from the Admin manual: 
Without any administrator influence, the order is first-in-first-out (FIFO).

The administrator has the following means to control the job order:
^A Ticket-based job priority. ....
^A Urgency-based job priority. ....
^A POSIX priority.....

Is there an easy way to tie one of these methods to the que which was
specified? I don't want the user to have to specify additional options (that
I have to explain and to police) other than the que if it can be helped.

And we'd prefer not to suspend jobs, but to let the running jobs complete
before starting new jobs. Suspending jobs would wreck havoc on our
completion predictions.

Perhaps I just want too much!?

Thanks,
Jim 

-----Original Message-----
From: Reuti [mailto:reuti at staff.uni-marburg.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:40 AM
To: users at gridengine.sunsource.net
Subject: Re: [GE users] Does nice always work when determining which waiting
job to assign to a node first?

Hi,

nice is not used for scheduling, but you can use a seq_no for the two queue
types, to fill first the nice=0 queue. But suspending a nice=19 queue - mhh
then this queue could also have just nice of 0, as it's suspended anyway, if
the nice=0 queue is filled (if I got you correctly).

CU - Reuti


Marconnet, James E Mr /Computer Sciences Corporation wrote:
> Using 6.0u3. Had some reports yesterday that some waiting jobs from a 
> que with nice=0 were still waiting after some waiting jobs from a 
> different que with nice=19 started running on nodes previously running 
> jobs with nice=19. The "wronged" users figuratively went on the 
> warpath soon afterwards.
> 
> We are using que subordination to prevent too many jobs from different 
> ques from running on the same nodes at the same time, but that works 
> on a node-by-node basis, and it seemed to be working OK.
> 
> Anything In particular I should know about this or to look for 
> settings-wise?
> 
> Thanks!
> Jim Marconnet
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe at gridengine.sunsource.net
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at gridengine.sunsource.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe at gridengine.sunsource.net
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at gridengine.sunsource.net




More information about the gridengine-users mailing list