[GE users] priority adjustment ...

Andreas.Haas at Sun.COM Andreas.Haas at Sun.COM
Tue Feb 27 17:08:50 GMT 2007


Thanks. The sched_conf(5) seems to be fine at large

   weight_priority                   1.000000
   weight_urgency                    0.100000
   weight_ticket                     0.010000
   weight_waiting_time               0.000000
   weight_deadline                   3600000.000000

I suggest you do a

    # qstat -pri

as to figure out where the priorities actually come from in the 
cluster where you see them. This should bring us closer to
the problem.

Andreas

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Lydia Heck wrote:

>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> the prioritisation I seen on one of my clusters is something like
>
> 16308 0.08690 debug      dph0elh      r     02/18/2007 17:38:28 miranda.q at m2007   128
>  21178 0.01963 KinghMov   dph3nlm      r     02/26/2007 23:53:15 miranda.q at m2009                   46
>  16320 0.05441 CB-Gh4038  simulate     r     02/19/2007 17:02:13 miranda.q at m2014                   16
>  19670 0.02297 Kinghalo   dph3nlm      r     02/26/2007 14:07:18 miranda.q at m2043                   50
>  16322 0.05441 CB-Gh7252  simulate     r     02/19/2007 17:03:13 quintor.q at m1005                   16
>  21232 0.00880 halo-9_14_ jch          r     02/27/2007 15:01:59 quintor.q at m1029                   16
>  16611 0.03751 CB-GC05    simulate     r     02/22/2007 15:26:04 quintor.q at m1042                   16
>  16609 0.03751 CB-GC0     simulate     r     02/22/2007 15:25:50 quintor.q at m1186                   16
>  16610 0.03751 CB-GC02    simulate     r     02/22/2007
> .....
> the priorities are different and adjusted by the system.
>
> on my new set up of another cluster is see
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   3077 0.55500 galaxy_tre jch          r     02/27/2007 14:17:09 extrashort.q at cdm26.phyastcl.du     1 356
>   3077 0.55500 galaxy_tre jch          r     02/27/2007 14:17:09 extrashort.q at cdm26.phyastcl.du     1 357
>   3036 0.55500 ReCat.csh  cai          r     02/27/2007 13:05:57 extrashort.q at cdm3.phyastcl.dur     1
>   3075 0.55500 galaxy_tre jch          r     02/27/2007 14:16:54 extrashort.q at cdm33.phyastcl.du     1 338
>   3076 0.55500 galaxy_tre jch          r     02/27/2007 14:17:09 extrashort.q at cdm33.phyastcl.du     1 339
>   2906 0.55500 xi.0.1_470 irpn         r     02/27/2007 15:23:39 medium.q at cdm10.phyastcl.dur.ac     1 85
>   2906 0.55500 xi.0.1_470 irpn         r     02/27/2007 15:23:39
>
> All the priorities are the same.
>
>
> I compared the configurations of both and I could not see any difference ..
>
>
>
> the output of qconf -ssconf is
>
> algorithm                         default
> schedule_interval                 0:0:15
> maxujobs                          0
> queue_sort_method                 load
> job_load_adjustments              np_load_short=0.5
> load_adjustment_decay_time        0:2:00
> load_formula                      np_load_avg
> schedd_job_info                   true
> flush_submit_sec                  0
> flush_finish_sec                  0
> params                            none
> reprioritize_interval             0:5:00
> halftime                          168
> usage_weight_list                 cpu=1.000000,mem=0.000000,io=0.000000
> compensation_factor               5.000000
> weight_user                       0.250000
> weight_project                    0.250000
> weight_department                 0.250000
> weight_job                        0.250000
> weight_tickets_functional         10000
> weight_tickets_share              0
> share_override_tickets            TRUE
> share_functional_shares           TRUE
> max_functional_jobs_to_schedule   200
> report_pjob_tickets               TRUE
> max_pending_tasks_per_job         100
> halflife_decay_list               none
> policy_hierarchy                  OFS
> weight_ticket                     0.010000
> weight_waiting_time               0.000000
> weight_deadline                   3600000.000000
> weight_urgency                    0.100000
> weight_priority                   1.000000
> max_reservation                   0
> default_duration                  0:10:0
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 Andreas.Haas at sun.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Lydia Heck wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> SGE: 6.09
>>>
>>> Although the users have now been more than 3000 jobs on my new setup,
>>> the priority
>>>
>>> 0.55500
>>>
>>> stays the same for all of the users.
>>> Should I expect that?
>>>
>>>
>>> The scheduler is configured with default values. I am using default
>>> values on another cluster, which runs  SGE 6.07
>>
>> Lydia, what kind of prioritization you hope to see and what
>> exactly you get with
>>
>>     # qconf -ssconf
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andreas
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe at gridengine.sunsource.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at gridengine.sunsource.net
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Dr E L  Heck
>
> University of Durham
> Institute for Computational Cosmology
> Ogden Centre
> Department of Physics
> South Road
>
> DURHAM, DH1 3LE
> United Kingdom
>
> e-mail: lydia.heck at durham.ac.uk
>
> Tel.: + 44 191 - 334 3628
> Fax.: + 44 191 - 334 3645
> ___________________________________________
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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