I couldn't agree more. For us at Sandia, the system is useless without
the Batch Server and Scheduler.
For example, policy is set with this software ( priorities, limits
etc.), who wants that in the hands of the users? It would be the Old
West with everyone "shooting" everyone else's jobs.
Or for another example maybe borrowing from Mad Max, "Two jobs enter,
one job leaves".
All kidding aside, we consider it system software, and it is treated as
such. Look at many of the cluster HPC stacks; Rocks/SUNHPC/Warewulf
they all include scheduling software as base needs within the distro.
--Jerry
George Wm Turner wrote:
TORQUE/PBS (and its scheduler; MAUI/MOAB) runs as root and spawns jobs
in the name of the user; it's the responsibility of the SysAdmin.
george wm turner
high performance systems
812 855 5156
On Aug 17, 2009, at 10:16 AM, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
All,
In the company I work for, we have had an ongoing debate over several
years regarding the management of Resource Managers and Schedulers
like SGE, TORQUE and MAUI, MOAB, etc. The basic difference comes in
whether or not these software technologies should be or are
considered as middle-ware or system software. Thus, as middle-ware,
user communities would/could be responsible for their administration
and management. While on the other hand, if it is considered system
software, it would be the IS/IT organizations' responsibility
to administer and maintain.
My argument has always been that it is these software technologies
that establish clusters from disparate building block systems to
create a new meta-system if you will. And that as such, these
technologies provide similar functionality as RMs and Schedulers at
the building block system level and therefore should be considered
systems software. Further, all the documentation and books that I
have read regarding cluster architecture suggest (but are not
specific) that these software technologies are considered necessary
to establish the cluster, regardless of whether or not applications
are to be executed on the cluster. And, in fact this is clearly the
case.
Others in our organization argue that because these technologies are
NOT delivered with the building block systems as part of their
Operation System software or libraries, they play more the function
of many middle-ware products today and should be considered
middle-ware. Doesn't middle-ware by definition facilitate some
interaction between applications and the system other than the use of
normal operating system or file system services? I would consider
packages such as Websphere, Java, Oracle in some cases, and even
VMWARE as middle-ware.
As users of these technologies, I am interested to know how you: 1)
define these technologies; and 2) manage them within your
organizations...IT or User groups. All inputs are welcome.
Thanks,
Stewart
_______________________________________________
mauiusers mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/mauiusers
_______________________________________________
mauiusers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/mauiusers
