> It could be done to have the slurmctld add the association if it didn't > exist for the special user, but that doesn't exist today. I think that > would probably be the best case scenario though.
If the association ends up getting created in the account database anyway, I tend to think it better that I control that process... I was hoping there was an algorithmic fix, but as you indicated, there be dragons thar... I ended up implementing it in the more manual fashion, and that actually seems to work OK. I basically dump and collate data from our AD, add overrides, and then add associations for all the all-access users, pretty straight forward. At the end of the day, it's all automated so it's not too big a deal for me to manage the access. Thanks for the help On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Danny Auble <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 05/01/2014 07:56 AM, Michael Gutteridge wrote: >> >> Not sure- I'm afraid that an "any" that was only good at one point in >> time might be a little more confusing than useful as more accounts are >> added. > > I agree. > >> >> What about bypassing the association check if a user is associated >> with a special group? > > That could cause a bunch of other issues, like limits and such and no > account for usage by the user. > > It could be done to have the slurmctld add the association if it didn't > exist for the special user, but that doesn't exist today. I think that > would probably be the best case scenario though. > > What do you think? > Danny > >> >> Thanks >> >> M >> >> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Danny Auble <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry Michael, nothing like that exists today. >>> >>> I don't think this would be something easy to implement either. Each >>> account >>> would need a new association so if you added a new account there would >>> need >>> to be logic to pull this user into that account as well. There just >>> isn't >>> anything like that there today. >>> >>> An easy, solution could be to have a special account name like your "any" >>> there and it would fill in all the accounts like you would want, but it >>> would only handle already existing accounts. If this seems like a good >>> idea >>> I could put it on the wish list. >>> >>> Danny >>> >>> >>> On 04/30/2014 09:22 AM, Michael Gutteridge wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm setting up account associations (Slurm 2.6.2). I have a number of >>>> users who are principally "service providers" for other groups and >>>> thus are allowed to run jobs in any account. >>>> >>>> I know I can do this: >>>> >>>> sacctmgr add user alice accounts=this,that,other,... >>>> >>>> With all the accounts listed, but as I've got a few hundred accounts >>>> this command might get a little ugly. I'd prefer something like: >>>> >>>> sacctmgr add user alice accounts=any ... >>>> >>>> Is there anything like that? >>>> >>>> Thanks much >>>> >>>> Michael >> >> >> > -- Hey! Somebody punched the foley guy! - Crow, MST3K ep. 508
