Glen Beane wrote:
> >
> > I'd prefer to keep most of the scheduling in the DRM (Torque, SGE, etc.)
> > since that's what it's designed to do. That said, we want to make it as
> > easy as possible to do this, and Galaxy currently only sort of has the
> > ability to do it. By currently I mean that
On Mar 15, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Nate Coraor wrote:
> Ry4an Brase wrote:
>> As use of our Galaxy installation is picking up, we're getting a lot of
>> requests for greater fairness and transparency in the Galaxy job runner
>> area.
>>
>> As I understand things the primary tool Galaxy gives us to aff
Ry4an Brase wrote:
> As use of our Galaxy installation is picking up, we're getting a lot of
> requests for greater fairness and transparency in the Galaxy job runner
> area.
>
> As I understand things the primary tool Galaxy gives us to affect
> processing order and wait times with our torque-bas
As use of our Galaxy installation is picking up, we're getting a lot of
requests for greater fairness and transparency in the Galaxy job runner
area.
As I understand things the primary tool Galaxy gives us to affect
processing order and wait times with our torque-based setup is the
ability to map
