[GE users] Fair share config, fill-up hosts and max user slots

Jean-Paul Minet minet at cism.ucl.ac.be
Fri Jan 6 11:00:55 GMT 2006


    [ 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. ]

Stephan,

Trying to work around the possible fair share bug (is it confirmed?), I am 
trying to combine functional policy and urgency (wait time only).  I have got 
the  scheduler config (with slot urgency set to 0) detailed below.  When I do a 
"qstat -prio", all pending jobs report 0 as "nurg" and "ntckts", whatever their 
waiting time is.  Is that the expected behavior?

Rgds

Jean-paul
--------------------
Output of qconf -ssconf:

algorithm                         default
...
maxujobs                          8
queue_sort_method                 load
job_load_adjustments              np_load_avg=0.50
load_adjustment_decay_time        0:7:30
load_formula                      slots
schedd_job_info                   true
flush_submit_sec                  0
flush_finish_sec                  0
params                            profile=1
reprioritize_interval             0:0:0
halftime                          336
usage_weight_list                 cpu=0.848000,mem=0.152000,io=0.000000
compensation_factor               5.000000
weight_user                       1.00000
weight_project                    0.000000
weight_department                 0.000000
weight_job                        0.000000
weight_tickets_functional         1000000
weight_tickets_share              1000000
share_override_tickets            TRUE
share_functional_shares           TRUE
max_functional_jobs_to_schedule   200
report_pjob_tickets               TRUE
max_pending_tasks_per_job         50
halflife_decay_list               none
policy_hierarchy                  FS
weight_ticket                     1.000000
weight_waiting_time               0.010000
weight_deadline                   3600000.000000
weight_urgency                    0.010000
weight_priority                   0.000000
max_reservation                   0
default_duration                  0:10:0



Stephan Grell - Sun Germany - SSG - Software Engineer wrote:
> Hi Jean-Paul,
> 
> I just did the test with the env you describe. I am sure, that you found 
> a bug. In my tests, the
> targeted resource share is allways 0 as you describe it. However, the 
> actual resource share
> is reported correctly.
> 
> Cheers,
> Stephan
> 
> Jean-Paul Minet wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Our bi-proc cluster is used for sequential, OpenMP and MPI jobs.  We 
>> wish to:
>>
>> 1) use fair-share scheduling with equal shares for all users
>>
>> I have disabled Priority and Urgency scheduling, and set policy 
>> hierarchy to S.:
>>
>> lemaitre ~ # qconf -ssconf
>> algorithm                         default
>> ...
>> halftime                          336
>> usage_weight_list                 cpu=0.848000,mem=0.152000,io=0.000000
>> ...
>> weight_tickets_functional         0
>> weight_tickets_share              10000
>> ...
>> policy_hierarchy                  S
>> weight_ticket                     1.000000
>> ...
>> weight_urgency                    0.000000
>> weight_priority                   0.000000
>>
>> Under the share tree policy, I have only defined a default leaf under 
>> which all users appear, but "Actual resource share" and "Targeted 
>> resource share" remain 0 for all users, as if actual usage was not 
>> taken into account?  This is confirmed by jobs being dispatched more 
>> like in FIFO order than following past usage. What's wrong?
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> 2) limit the total number of CPUs/slots used by any user at any time: 
>> MaxJobs/User doesn't help as a single MPI job can use many slots and 
>> therefore cannot compare to a sequential job.  How can we implement this?
>>
>> 3) fill-up hosts with sequential jobs to leave as many empty nodes for 
>> OpenMP and MPI jobs.  I have read Stephen G. WebL Log: am I correct in 
>> assuming that I have to define a complex_values slots=2 for each of 
>> the biproc host (we don't want more jobs than CPU) and, thereafter, 
>> the scheduler will select the hosts with the least available slots 
>> (setting of course queue_sort_method=load and load_formula=slots) ?
>>
>> Thanks for any help
>>
>> Jean-Paul
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe at gridengine.sunsource.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at gridengine.sunsource.net
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Jean-Paul Minet
Gestionnaire CISM - Institut de Calcul Intensif et de Stockage de Masse
Université Catholique de Louvain
Tel: (32) (0)10.47.35.67 - Fax: (32) (0)10.47.34.52

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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