Opened 19 years ago
Last modified 10 years ago
#47 new enhancement
IZ285: allow parallel job allocation scheme be specified at submission time
Reported by: | andreas | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | low | Milestone: | |
Component: | sge | Version: | 5.3 |
Severity: | Keywords: | clients | |
Cc: |
Description
[Imported from gridengine issuezilla http://gridengine.sunsource.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=285]
Issue #: 285 Platform: All Reporter: andreas (andreas) Component: gridengine OS: All Subcomponent: clients Version: 5.3 CC: [_] jmarshall [_] Remove selected CCs Status: NEW Priority: P4 Resolution: Issue type: ENHANCEMENT Target milestone: --- Assigned to: roland (roland) QA Contact: roland URL: * Summary: allow parallel job allocation scheme be specified at submission time Status whiteboard: Attachments: Issue 285 blocks: Votes for issue 285: Opened: Mon Jun 10 05:14:00 -0700 2002 ------------------------ DESCRIPTION: The switch "-pe <pe-name> <slots-range>" requires the admin to prepare a parallel environment (PE) for each allocation rule to be used within a cluster. Depending on the profile of the parallel jobs typically used at a site it might be cumbersome to manage all the different PEs and to have the user understand the meaning of each PE. WORKAROUND: Create one PE for each allocation rule in use. HOW TO FIX: It would be possible to have the user directly specify the allocation rule to be used for a parallel job instead of having the admin to prepare PEs and the user decide for those prepared PEs. A new job submission switch "-pe_alloc <allocation_rule> <slot-range>" could be introduced to support this. The new switch needs two option arguments: 1. <allocation_rule> Specifying an allocation rule with the -pe_alloc switch is semantic-wise a synonynous for selecting a PE providing this allocation rule 2. <slot-range> Has the same meaning as the "slot-range" option argument with the existing -pe switch. Then the user could directly control allocation scheme e.g. "-pe_alloc 2 8" or "-pe_alloc 4 64,48,32,16". For a parallel job either "-pe <pe-name> <slot-range>" or "-pe_alloc <allocation_rule> <slot-range>" may be specified. ------- Additional comments from andreas Wed Apr 16 02:36:06 -0700 2003 ------- The draft sketched under "HOW TO FIX" is not sufficient. It must be reworked to allow user defined allocation rules be used in a consistent combination with other features of the PE object. These are * administrator controlled PE start/stop procedure * administrator controlled access to the PE * administrator controlled maxmimum amount of slots for a certain group of parallel jobs * administrators decision whether for those parallel jobs the tight/loose integration must be used (!) To allow this the draft should be reworked to allow jobs be rejected at submission time in case (1) the job requests an allocation rule without also refering to an administrator provided PE object. By doing so one ensures e.g. that it is specified whehter tight/loose integration must be assumed for the job. (2) the PE object refered by the users allocation rule request is not foreseen to be overridden. To facilitate this the PE object could specify whether per job overriding of the allocation rule is forbidden/allowed/required. All of these three modes seem to be useful. To facilitate (1) the -pe_alloc switch should have only *one* option argument "-pe_alloc <allocation_rule>" and would never be accepted without a "-pe <pe-name> <slot-range>" request. To facilitate (2) a new attribute 'override_allocation_rule' should be added to the PE object. The values accepted for this attribute would be "forbidden"/"allowed"/"required". ------- Additional comments from andreas Wed Apr 16 02:37:11 -0700 2003 ------- The draft sketched under "HOW TO FIX" is not sufficient. It must be reworked to allow user defined allocation rules be used in a consistent combination with other features of the PE object. These are * administrator controlled PE start/stop procedure * administrator controlled access to the PE * administrator controlled maxmimum amount of slots for a certain group of parallel jobs * administrators decision whether for those parallel jobs the tight/loose integration must be used (!) To allow this the draft should be reworked to allow jobs be rejected at submission time in case (1) the job requests an allocation rule without also refering to an administrator provided PE object. By doing so one ensures e.g. that it is specified whehter tight/loose integration must be assumed for the job. (2) the PE object refered by the users allocation rule request is not foreseen to be overridden. To facilitate this the PE object could specify whether per job overriding of the allocation rule is forbidden/allowed/required. All of these three modes seem to be useful. To facilitate (1) the -pe_alloc switch should have only *one* option argument "-pe_alloc <allocation_rule>" and would never be accepted without a "-pe <pe-name> <slot-range>" request. To facilitate (2) a new attribute 'override_allocation_rule' should be added to the PE object. The values accepted for this attribute would be "forbidden"/"allowed"/"required". ------- Additional comments from pollinger Fri Dec 9 08:39:15 -0700 2005 ------- Changed subcomponent
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.