Hi Danny, On Monday, November 28, 2011 2:00 PM, "Danny Auble" <[email protected]> wrote: > You can modify the function in src/slurmctld/job_mgr.c > _determine_and_validate_qos() to do what you need. Just remove the last > check in the function and you should get what you want. > > Danny
>From checking that function, it would appear that removing that check would result in avoiding the ESLURM_INVALID_QOS error, and an error message of "This association... does not have access to qos..." However, it seems that should only get triggered if AccountingStorageEnforce is set. From trying things out, as long as I have that parameter unset, submission seems to accept the --qos argument. So seemingly, for my use case, things should work without making the change. Am I missing something in this conclusion? But I noticed a couple of things I don't understand. 1. I defined a qos entity with the Priority and MaxJobs parameters set. If I submitted multiple test jobs with that qos level via the --qos argument, I could see via squeue that qos level associated with the jobs. However, the maximum number of concurrent jobs did not seem to be limited, i.e., the MaxJobs parameter did not seem to be obeyed. Are there some other required parameters that need to be set? 2. I set the DefaultQOS parameter on the cluster to another qos entity that I'd defined. sacctmgr show cluster indicates "normal" for "QOS" parameter and "customdefault" for Def QOS. Yet, jobs submitted without a --qos argument always end up with the "normal" qos and not "customdefault". I guess I'm unclear on why there are two QOS-related parameters for the cluster entity and how they relate to each other. Thank you, V. Ram > On 11/28/11 13:50, V. Ram wrote: > > Hello Slurm folks, > > > > I would like to take advantage of the scheduling priorities and limits > > associated with QOS values, without having to explicitly add every > > single user to to the accounting database. Is this possible? I don't > > need the other accounting attributes per se, like bookkeeping against > > various bank accounts, etc. The limits, priorities, and pre-emption > > settings available via QOS entries are enough for our needs. Can QOS be > > done without explicitly identifying whole associations? I'm even > > prepared to not use AccountingStorageEnforce, so long as I'd be able to > > set a default QOS for users that don't supply a QOS value when they > > submit jobs. > > > > I realize that enforcing explicit user permissions serves as a form of > > access control many administrators would want, but in our use case it > > wouldn't be necessary. Or if this is unavoidable, can Unix groups be > > used in lieu of explicitly adding individual users? > > > > Thank you, > > > > V. Ram -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.
