[GE users] Sort by sequence number question

Andreas.Haas at Sun.COM Andreas.Haas at Sun.COM
Tue Jul 17 17:50:08 BST 2007


On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Paul MacInnis wrote:

> 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 ...

Could you try whether behaviour changes anyhow when you set load_thresholds
to NONE with both queues? Just temporarily for testing purposes. Load 
thresholds make setups always hard to survey, whereas setups without load 
thrsholds are fairly deterministic.

Andreas

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