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

Jean-Paul Minet minet at cism.ucl.ac.be
Wed Jan 11 15:26:24 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. ]

>>Finally, the question I had for the pending job remains valid: if some jobs are 
>>in the scheduler waiting area (not being dispatched because max_u_job is 
>>reached, or because resources are not available), shouldn't the scheduler also 
>>display tickets/urgency and priority information for those jobs?
>>
> 
> Well, that is a difficult discussion. We have changed the behavior you
> ask to the
> current one after we released SGE 6. We thought, that the tickets should
> reflect
> the dispatch order. Since some jobs will not be dispatched, because they
> are in
> hold state or the user has exceeded his limits, the job will not be
> dispatched, and
> therefore, will not get any tickets or priority information.

It's OK with me ;-)

jp

> Cheers,
> Stephan
> 
> 
>>Thnks again for your help
>>
>>Jean-Paul
>>
>>Stephan Grell - Sun Germany - SSG - Software Engineer wrote:
>> 
>>
>>
>>>Hi Jean-Paul,
>>>
>>>we do have a bug with displaying the sharetree data. I could not find any
>>>issue with the actual sharetree computation. Those test were all successful.
>>>
>>>How long did you wait? Did you wait until the scheduler made it run? The
>>>priority
>>>information is only available, when the scheduler is running and after
>>>it has finished
>>>its first run.
>>>
>>>Could you give me your entire configuration, that is related to this
>>>problem?
>>>
>>>Meaning:
>>>- qstat -prio
>>>- qstat -ext
>>>- user configuration involved
>>>- project configuration involved
>>>- resource configuration qstat -sc
>>>- qconf -sss output
>>>- sharetree config.
>>>
>>>Sofar I can not replicate your issue. Did you build your binaries yourself?
>>>Which archs are you using?
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Stephan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Jean-Paul Minet wrote On 01/06/06 12:00,:
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>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
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
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