Yes that is correct. The first entry is the allocation which has 2 cpus,
-n 2 was specified, the second entry is the batch step that run for 81
seconds, so the total cpu time used was 81 8*2.
Form 'man sacct':
CPUTime Formatted (Elapsed time * CPU) count used by a job or step.
CPUTimeRaw Unlike above non formatted (Elapsed time * CPU) count for
a job or step. Units are cpu-seconds
On 08/05/2014 11:48 AM, Robert Stober wrote:
Hi David,
That's because I forgot to include my sacct command:
sacct -ap -S 2014-01-01 -E now
--format=jobid,user,partition,ncpus,cputimeraw,nodelist
So in my example, the single job step (59.batch) ran on one core and
took 81 seconds. The first entry (which I'm referring to as the "primary
job") shows that he reserved (or requested) two cpus. I'm assuming that
since the two cpus he requested were unavailable to anyone else, Slurm
is just showing that he effectively used 162 cpu seconds (81 x 2).
Thank you,
Robert
On 8/5/2014 9:53 AM, David Bigagli wrote:
Hi Robert,
the first line is the allocation and the second the batch
step, the batch step runs on one cpu. I am not sure what are the
columns with values 162 and 81. The elapsed time of the allocation
should be the sum of elapsed time of all steps, so if the step ran for
81 seconds I would expect the elapsed time of the allocation to be 81.
For exaple:
david@prometeo ~/slurm/work>\sacct -o jobid,ncpus,state,elapsed -j 78475
JobID NCPUS State Elapsed
------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
78475 2 COMPLETED 00:00:20
78475.batch 1 COMPLETED 00:00:20
78475.0 2 COMPLETED 00:00:10
78475.1 2 COMPLETED 00:00:10
On 08/05/2014 09:19 AM, Robert Stober wrote:
Please consider this sacct output. My question is how should this output
be understood?
59|usera|defq|2|162|
59.batch|||1|81|
Here's how I'm reading it:
1. usera submitted jobid 59 and requested 2 CPUs.
2. He actually used only one CPU for 81 seconds.
3. As a result, 2 CPUs were reserved and unavailable to anyone during
the 81 second run time, so 162 CPU seconds were effectively used (by
virtue of both CPUs being unavailable during the entire job run time).
Do I have an accurate understanding of this? If so, then it appears that
if I want the total "chargeable" resource usage I should just look at
the primary job record (59 in this case) and skip the records for each
of the job steps since they're included in the primary. Would you
concur?
Thank you,
Robert
--
brightcomputing_logo.png
Mr. Robert Stober
Senior Systems Architect
Mob: +1 209 986 9298
Skype: rstober
robert.sto...@brightcomputing.com
<mailto:robert.sto...@brightcomputing.com>
Bright Computing, Inc.
2880 Zanker Road
Suite 203
San Jose, CA 95134
Tel: +1 408 300 9448
Fax: +1 408 715 0102
www.BrightComputing.com <http://www.brightcomputing.com>
--
brightcomputing_logo.png
Mr. Robert Stober
Senior Systems Architect
Mob: +1 209 986 9298
Skype: rstober
robert.sto...@brightcomputing.com <mailto:robert.sto...@brightcomputing.com>
Bright Computing, Inc.
2880 Zanker Road
Suite 203
San Jose, CA 95134
Tel: +1 408 300 9448
Fax: +1 408 715 0102
www.BrightComputing.com <http://www.brightcomputing.com>
--
Thanks,
/David/Bigagli
Slurm User Group Meeting
September 23-24, Lugano, Switzerland
Find out more http://slurm.schedmd.com/slurm_ug_agenda.html
www.schedmd.com
