[GE users] priority adjustment ...

Lydia Heck lydia.heck at durham.ac.uk
Tue Feb 27 17:22:54 GMT 2007




qstat -pri on the changing priorities cluster looks as follows

oberon# qstat -pri
job-ID  prior   nurg    npprior ntckts   ppri name       user         state submit/start at     queue                          slots ja-task-ID
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  21207 0.00531 0.00312 0.50000 0.50000     0 SliceFoF   rcrain       r     02/27/2007 10:27:45 cordelia.q at m2078                   1 9
  19486 0.04680 0.41803 0.50000 0.50000     0 DEFL25N512 caius        r     02/25/2007 16:30:19 cordelia.q at m2090                 128
  16441 0.10500 1.00000 0.50000 0.50000     0 GimicB     tt           r     02/25/2007 19:35:10 cordelia.q at m2094                 256
  21207 0.00531 0.00312 0.50000 0.50000     0 SliceFoF   rcrain       r     02/27/2007 10:27:45 cordelia.q at m2103                   1 4
  21207 0.00531 0.00312 0.50000 0.50000     0 SliceFoF   rcrain       r     02/27/2007 10:27:45 cordelia.q at m2107                   1 10
  21183 0.01316 0.08163 0.50000 0.50000     0 C9_14_39   arj          r     02/27/2007 09:03:45 cordelia.q at m2119                  32
  21207 0.00531 0.00312 0.50000 0.50000     0 SliceFoF   rcrain       r     02/27/2007 10:27:45 cordelia.q at m2152                   1 6
  21207 0.00531 0.00312 0.50000 0.50000     0 SliceFoF   rcrain       r     02/27/2007 10:27:45 cordelia.q at m2223                   1 8

.....


on the new cluster it shows ...

job-ID  prior   nurg    npprior ntckts   ppri name       user         state submit/start at     queue                          slots ja-task-ID
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   3077 0.55500 0.50000 0.50000 0.50000     0 galaxy_tre jch          r     02/27/2007 14:17:09 extrashort.q at cdm26.phyastcl.du     1 356
   3077 0.55500 0.50000 0.50000 0.50000     0 galaxy_tre jch          r     02/27/2007 14:17:09 extrashort.q at cdm26.phyastcl.du     1 357
   3036 0.55500 0.50000 0.50000 0.50000     0 ReCat.csh  cai          r     02/27/2007 13:05:57 extrashort.q at cdm3.phyastcl.dur     1
   3075 0.55500 0.50000 0.50000 0.50000     0 galaxy_tre jch          r     02/27/2007 14:16:54 extrashort.q at cdm33.phyastcl.du     1 338
   3076 0.55500 0.50000 0.50000 0.50000     0 galaxy_tre jch          r     02/27/2007 14:17:09 extrashort.q at cdm33.phyastcl.du     1 339
   2906 0.55500 0.50000 0.50000 0.50000     0 xi.0.1_470 irpn         r     02/27/2007 15:23:39 medium.q at cdm10.phyastcl.dur.ac     1 85
   2906 0.55500 0.50000 0.50000 0.50000     0 xi.0.1_470 irpn         r     02/27/2007 15:23:39 medium.q at cdm10.phyastcl.dur.ac     1 86
   2906 0.55500 0.50000 0.50000 0.50000     0 xi.0.1_470 irpn         r     02/27/2007 10:56:27 medium.q at cdm11.phyastcl.dur.ac     1 29

........

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 Andreas.Haas at sun.com wrote:
> 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
>

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




More information about the gridengine-users mailing list