Is it possible the job runs on several nodes, say -N 3, then one node is
lost so it ends up running on 2 nodes only? Such a job should have been
submitted with ---no-kill.

/David

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Michael Colonno <[email protected]>wrote:

>
>         Actually did mean node below. The job launched on a node and then,
> with no user input, later appeared to be running (or trying to run) on a
> different node. This is rare but happens from time to time. I'm not sure if
> this is the default scheduling algorithm trying make things fit better.
>
>         Cheers,
>         ~Mike C.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcin Stolarek [
> http://lists.schedmd.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/r/slurmdev/520036565912/]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 1:43 AM
> To: slurm-dev
> Subject: [slurm-dev] Re: node switching / selection
>
>
> 2013/3/22 Michael Colonno <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> >         Hi Folks ~
>
> Hi,
> >
> >
> >         A couple (hopefully) simple questions; I can't find anything
> that obviously / easily solves these in the man pages. I have a fairly
> ordinary deployment in which scheduling is done by core so some high-memory
> systems can be shared.
> >
> >         - Users have observed that sometimes jobs are being moved from
> one node to another while running. This makes the particular tool being
> used unhappy. Is there a >way to prevent this either with a flag or config
> file entry?
>
> by node you mean cpu?
>
> If so using ProctrackType=proctrack/cgroup (check man for cgroup.conf)
>  should solve your problem, if you are using non cgroup aware kernel (for
> instance RHEL 5) you can use cpuset spank plugin.
>
>
> >         - When scheduling by core the default behavior seems to be to
> fill up the first node with tasks, then move to the second, etc. Since
> memory is being shared between >tasks it would be preferable to select a
> node on which no other jobs (or the minimum number of other jobs) are
> running before piling onto a node already running a job(s). >How can a tell
> SLURM the equivalent of "pick an unused node first if available".
>
>
> I'm not sure if it's possible. Do we have possibility of changing node
> allocation algorithm in slurm (like in moab/maui?)
>
>
> cheers,
> marcin
>

Reply via email to