[GE users] Slot-wise suspend on subordinate

reuti reuti at staff.uni-marburg.de
Tue Jul 28 11:26:55 BST 2009

Am 28.07.2009 um 11:54 schrieb pollinger:

> fx wrote:
>> pollinger <harald.pollinger at sun.com> writes:
>>> 3.2 Functionality
>>>     Like with queue-instance-wise suspend on subordinate, both  
>>> the subordinate
>>>     and the superordinate queue instance must be on the same host.
>> I meant to ask before:  what's the reason for that restriction in the
>> queue-instance-wise case?
> The goal of the suspend on subordinate was in the first place to free
> host resources for high priority jobs. I know there are possibly  
> other,
> not host bound resources, that could be freed by suspend on  
> subordinate.

Well, CPUs (i.e. slots) are freed. But consumed resources aren't  
freed by a suspension. They are still occupied when a job gets  

This would be a completely new project to free for example licenses  
or consumed virtual_free by a suspension and give them back to the  
system I think. Maybe this should be called hibernate job (with new  
options to qmod) then and have similar entries like the  
subordination. The algorithm is much more complex, as first the job  
must be stopped, then the resources given back and a new job can  
consume the freed resources. And the un-hibernate of the first job  
must be forbidden, as long as the new jobs runs...

-- Reuti

> I don't want to change the scheduler completely, so I will stick to  
> this
> behaviour, at least for the first version of the slot-wise suspend on
> subordinate.
> Regards,
> Harald
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://gridengine.sunsource.net/ds/viewMessage.do? 
> dsForumId=38&dsMessageId=209870
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users- 
> unsubscribe at gridengine.sunsource.net].


To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe at gridengine.sunsource.net].

More information about the gridengine-users mailing list