Sent by: users-boun...@open-mpi.org
22-10-2007 19:40
Please respond to
Open MPI Users <us...@open-mpi.org>
To
us...@open-mpi.org
cc
Subject
[OMPI users] SLURM vs. Torque?
Hello All.
We are starting to need resource/scheduling management for our small
cluster, and I was w
On Monday 22 October 2007, Bill Johnstone wrote:
> Hello All.
>
> We are starting to need resource/scheduling management for our small
> cluster, and I was wondering if any of you could provide comments on
> what you think about Torque vs. SLURM? On the basis of the appearance
> of active
IMNSHO: SLURM, Torque, and N1GE are all fine products. They work
well in production environments, both small and large. They all have
default trivial FIFO schedulers but can also be used with more
complex schedulers (e.g., Maui/Moab).
FWIW: I tend to like SLURM simply out of personal
SLURM was really easy to build and install, plus it's a project of LLNL
and I love stuff that the Nat'l Labs architect.
The SLURM message board is also very active and quick to respond to
questions and problems.
Jeff F. Pummill
Bill Johnstone wrote:
Hello All.
We are starting to need
users] SLURM vs. Torque?
Hello All.
We are starting to need resource/scheduling management for our small
cluster, and I was wondering if any of you could provide comments on
what you think about Torque vs. SLURM? On the basis of the appearance
of active development as well as the documentation
Hello All.
We are starting to need resource/scheduling management for our small
cluster, and I was wondering if any of you could provide comments on
what you think about Torque vs. SLURM? On the basis of the appearance
of active development as well as the documentation, SLURM seems to be
