Quoting Yuri D'Elia <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:44:24 -0800
Danny Auble <[email protected]> wrote:
Yuri,
You might want to reconsider your choice for storage plugin. The
postgres plugin hasn't been maintained for quite sometime, and only
contains a fraction of functionality the mysql plugin brings. The
original authors have already abandoned it as well. With that said
we will accept patches on the current code like you have sent, but
I just wanted to warn you before you go too far down this path and
wonder why things don't work the way you would expect.
Ok, that's good to know. Is this written somewhere or did I miss it?
It is noted twice in the slurm.conf man page. I just added two more
notes about this to the configuration web page
If the storage module is somewhat deprecated then it doesn't make
much sense to keep it.
Any chance this is related to this issue?
http://groups.google.com/group/slurm-devel/browse_thread/thread/62aba28f28ca599e
On another note. While I don't discourage anyone from testing and
developing with the 2.4 branch I would strongly suggest using 2.3
on any production cluster. In any pre-release version of the code
the releases may or may not be compatible with previous ones and
could lead to job loss. It isn't clear what kind of environment you
are running in and I just wanted to give a warning before it is too
late. If you are just testing or developing then you have chosen
correctly though.
I'm using it alongside 2.1 for development/testing purposes. No real
work is being produced with it, but I'm trying to use real workloads.
