Danny, Thank you for your response. We'll schedule an upgrade to address the issue.
Could you tell me if commit 6aadcf15355dfe (introduced in 14.03.4) will still be present? John DeSantis 2014-09-26 13:45 GMT-04:00 Danny Auble <[email protected]>: > > John, this was fixed in 14.11 (commit > d23590dbc94e40a0963fc8d1cee0e6145f782f5c). Since structures had to change > it wasn't possible to fix previous versions. The patch might go in cleanly > to 14.03, but will probably need some massaging with the packs and unpacks. > Using this patch will also break backwards compatibility which you may or > may not care about. > > Danny > > On 09/26/2014 10:19 AM, John Desantis wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> First and foremost since this is my first post to the list, I'd like >> to thank the Slurm developers for a great and gratis product! >> >> Anyways, to the point. >> >> We have users submitting array jobs via sbatch and using >> "-a/--array=n-n" without an issue. When these jobs are running, we >> can use 'squeue' to see tasks under the form of "jobnumber_task". >> When we try to query these jobs via the accounting database (checking >> on job_table, step_table, and jobcomp_table) and via sacct -j >> "jobnumber", we're not getting the complete set of information >> associated with the job(batch and exec hosts, etc.). If the job is >> currently running, we can use scontrol to see the job and its steps, >> and the full set of information we're looking for. >> >> When I used scontrol to view an array job, I saw that "JobId" for each >> of the array tasks incremented based upon the step, e.g.: >> >> JobId=23383 ArrayJobId=23383 ArrayTaskId=1 >> JobId=23384 ArrayJobId=23383 ArrayTaskId=2 >> JobId=23385 ArrayJobId=23383 ArrayTaskId=3 >> >> When I tried to query any of the successive JobId's via sacct or the >> DB itself, I didn't get any information. Only the real JobId "23383" >> returned a result within sacct and the DB. I was able to glean node >> information from the scheduler and control daemon logs by looking for >> the JobId's listed above. >> >> I did find a previous post >> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03344.html which >> seems to be my question as well. >> >> Thanks for any insight which can be provided, >> >> John DeSantis
