Use the command "scontrol show job --detail". The output will contain
a line like this for each node allocated to each job:
Nodes=tux123 CPU_IDs=2-5 Mem=2048
While the data does exist, that's not going to be particularly simple
to parse and work with. There has been talk about adding an "--xml"
option for XML output from scontrol, but that has never been done.
Since SLURM is open source, you could modify scontrol to add an
"--xml" option or build a new tool for your particular application.
Moe Jette
SchedMD
Quoting Mark Nelson <mdnels...@gmail.com>:
Hi there,
My colleague came up with the question below about running jobs on a
normal x86 based cluster. Hopefully someone here can shed some light
on this.
When running SLURM on a multi-core/multi-socket cluster systems is
there any way of finding out the cores allocated for a particular
job. Using "scontrol show job" I can find out which nodes are
allocated and a total number of cores, but have no way of knowing
how these cores might be distributed across the nodes. While the
system seems to allocate cores consecutively, across multiple jobs
there is no way of knowing which cores are assigned to which job.
For example, in an 8-core multi-node system, if I ask for 3 cores
across 2 nodes (salloc -n 3 -N 2) how do I know if 2 cores are
allocated from the first node and 1 core from the second or
visa-versa. Also as nodes are filled up with other jobs, and jobs
finish at different times, there is no way of mapping jobs to
particular cores. I've seen from other postings that SLURM core
numbering might not match the physical hardware core numbering, but
for my purposes this is not a problem, as long as the numbering is
consistent.
The reason I'm asking this question, is I'm trying to integrate
SLURM with PTP (Eclipse Parallel Tools Platform) system monitoring
that expects to map jobs to nodes and cores in a graphical
interface. Therefore for jobs on a multi-core cluster, I need to
report on which cores and nodes a particular job is running, in a
specified XML format.
Many thanks!
Mark.
