[GE users] Sort by sequence number question

Paul MacInnis macinnis at dal.ca
Tue Jul 17 16:41:47 BST 2007


Hi Andreas and Erik,

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 Andreas.Haas at Sun.COM wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Paul MacInnis wrote:
> 
> >> I did this with N1GE 6.1
> >>
> >> Could it be that jobs are submitted with -soft option as to specify some
> >> preferece? Or are you using some over-sensitive load thresholds?
> >
> > This is a pretty good duplication of our setup here. However on your
> > "qsub" you use "-q test_*" to select a domain of queues for the
> > scheduler.  We don't use -q at all, the scheduler chooses cluster
> > queues as it pleases.
> 
> I used the "-q test_*" just to exclude other queues and the -q option 
> has no impact on order of queue consideration.
> 
> > So I would claim that by default the scheduler
> > considers 1 cluster queue at a time to satisfy a request and only
> > looks at additional cluster queues if no instance satisfies.
> 
> Wrong claim. The scheduler considers one queue instance after the
> other. Cluster queues play no role at all with the order of 
> consideration. If you don't believe me, I'll be happy to proof 
> it with source code :-)
> 
> > Try something that doesn't select queues by name, perhaps a
> > resource request that allows you only on these test queues.
> 
> That is pointless. Queue selection does not play into the order 
> of consideration. All it does is filtering. Really ;-)
> 
> That means there must be something different with your setup. 
> For that reason I sent you these questions with my last mail:
> 
> (1) Could it be that jobs are submitted with -soft option as to specify some
>      preferece? 
> (2) Or are you using some over-sensitive load thresholds?
> 
> Andreas

OK, Erik's test and the source code prove me wrong.

The jobs here have no -soft options but they do have load thresholds:

qname                 ser.q
hostlist              @1g.hg @2g.hg @4g.hg
seq_no                1965,[@2g.hg=2965],[@4g.hg=4965]
load_thresholds       load_avg=1.5,mem_used=500M,[@2g.hg=load_avg=1.5, \
                      mem_used=1.5G],[@4g.hg=load_avg=1.5,mem_used=3.5G]
suspend_thresholds    NONE

qname                 bg.q
hostlist              @2g.hg @4g.hg
seq_no                2969,[@4g.hg=4969]
load_thresholds       load_avg=1.5,mem_used=1.5G,[@4g.hg=load_avg=1.5, \
                      mem_used=3.5G]
suspend_thresholds    load_avg=2.5

Each 2G and 4G node has a ser.q and a bg.q queue instance, each with same
load_thresholds, but scheduler has a definite preference for the bg.q
instance, inspite of the higher seqno!  Perhaps in time an explanation
will appear ... 

Thanks for looking at this problem(?).

Paul






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