Ah, that makes sense now. And the "-s R" option is useful as well. However I previously interpreted as "Job *currently has* an allocation" instead of "Job had an allocation for the given time range". Now it is clear.
Thanks for all your help. On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Bjørn-Helge Mevik <[email protected]>wrote: > > Yong Qin <[email protected]> writes: > > > Thanks, but this still doesn't make sense to me. The same job is reported > > in both these two commands. > > > > sacct -a -S 2013-05-11T00:00:00 -E 2013-05-12T00:00:00 -o > > jobid,submit,eligible,start,end > > sacct -a -S 2013-05-12T00:00:00 -E 2013-05-13T00:00:00 -o > > jobid,submit,eligible,start,end > > > > 4173 2013-05-11T23:45:26 2013-05-11T23:45:26 2013-05-12T23:03:59 > > 2013-05-13T11:53:42 > > The job was pending between 2013-05-11T23:45:26 and 2013-05-12T23:03:59, > which means it was "eligible" some time between 2013-05-11T00:00:00 and > 2013-05-12T00:00:00 (namely between 2013-05-11T23:45:26 and > 2013-05-12T00:00:00). Thus it should be included in the first output. > > It should also be included in the second output, because it was running > in part of the period from 2013-05-12T00:00:00 to 2013-05-13T00:00:00 > (namely between 2013-05-12T23:03:59 and 2013-05-13T00:00:00). Running > is also considered "eligible". > > > I totally agree your comment on that sacct lacks on the way to filter > jobs > > that are actually within the time interval. > > As Danny said: add --state=RUNNING. :) > > -- > Regards, > Bjørn-Helge Mevik, dr. scient, > Department for Research Computing, University of Oslo >
