On Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Garrick Staples wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:13:20PM -0500, Michael Homa alleged: > > On Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Greenseid, Joseph M (IS) wrote: > > > > > would setting resources_max.nodect=4 for the queue in torque do what you > > > need? > > > > Hi Joe: > > > > Yes, that would work. But, and I didn't really explain this at all in my > > note (was trying to be brief), I'm trying to have Maui do all the "policy > > stuff" and have torque just define the resource(s). I'd like to avoid having > > some policies in torque and some policies in Maui. If there's no way to do > > A practical reason to have as much policy in torque as possible is because of > error messages. > > When you violate a policy in torque, the user gets immediate feedback because > the job is rejected with an error message. > > When you violate a policy in maui, the job sits around deferred until someone > bothers to check on it.
Hi Garrick: That's a reasonable point. And, to boot, the messages in Maui are incredibly cryptic; deciphering the output from checkjob can test one's skill. But, just for my understanding/learning, does Maui not have the capability of limiting the number of nodes per user or the number of processors per user? Is what I'm encountering the result of a limitation in Maui or is it that the features are there but I just haven't done it correctly? Michael _______________________________________________ mauiusers mailing list [email protected] http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/mauiusers
