[GE users] Optimal queue configuration?

Reuti reuti at staff.uni-marburg.de
Mon Feb 7 19:42:06 GMT 2005


    [ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-10" character set.  ]
    [ Some special characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Hi,

why are you having in total 6 slots per machine? I suggest to make one batch 
queue (2 slots) with a nice value of 19 and an interactive queue (1 slot) with 
the default nice value of 0. This way you won't lose any CPU time when the 
interactive usage is low like just watching results, and get more CPU time when 
calculating.

Cheers - Reuti

Quoting "Boone J. Severson" <severson at cray.com>:

> Hello,
> 
> I'm looking for some feedback on queue structure for our 37 dual Opteron 
> grid. We currently have an interactive and a batch queue on each 
> machine, each queue having 3 slots.
> 
> The problem we've been running into is that while all of the people who 
> can qsub their jobs mostly are (a good thing in my book), there's a few 
> "heavyweight" interactive applications that use X GUIs. These GUIs are 
> not processor intensive when you're just viewing results or configuring 
> a run script, but once you instruct the tool to do its thing it might 
> use 100% of a single processor for an hour to 3 days.
> 
> Users of these tools complain (rightly?) that when they launch the 
> application they're expecting to get a processor but because they might 
> not become processor intensive for some period of time, a new batch job 
> or 2 will be assigned to that machine causing them to share.
> 
> Are SGE users using machines configured like ours, or do you tend to put 
> 1 queue per machine, dedicating some machines to interactive and some to 
> batch? I've got it in my head that the ideal solution involves creating 
> interactive queues labeled lightweight and heavyweight, and batch queues 
> labeled short-running and long-running. Heavyweight or short-running 
> jobs would get the highest priority, so only 1 heavyweight or short-run 
> queue would exist on a group of machines, but a lightweight interactive 
> and a long-running batch queue would exist per machine on the other 
> sub-group. My only hesitation with this formula is that everyone would 
> label their batch job as short-running and their interactive jobs as 
> heavyweight, thus defeating the entire purpose. Or, even worse, bringing 
> up a heavyweight interactive application and minimizing it for days on end.
> 
> I'd love to hear about grid configurations that have worked well at 
> other sites.
> 
> Thanks!
> Boone
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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