I agree to some extent. Certainly the RM is a core, privileged service. The scheduler is key but need not run as root (unless want to use msub) - and we don't.
Note that both the RM and scheduler have manager (and operator) roles. Much of the day-to-day management can be done without root privilege. -- Gareth ________________________________ From: Jerry Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 2:27 AM To: George Wm Turner Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Mauiusers] [torqueusers] Philosophical Question 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]> 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] http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/mauiusers _______________________________________________ mauiusers mailing list [email protected] http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/mauiusers
