On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 05:11:39 AM Hendryk Bockelmann wrote: > Do you have any idea if this is an intended behaviour or a bug?
We hit this same issue when we were bringing up our Intel Sandybridge cluster back in 2013 (as SMT for SB was better than previous generations) and it was a significant part of the reason for us disabling SMT, the pain it would cause us in managing quotas wasn't worth the gain. So we'd certainly prefer Slurm to account SMT's as being the same as their single core (or even better, to make that a configuration parameter so everyone can be happy). All the best, Chris -- Christopher Samuel Senior Systems Administrator VLSCI - Victorian Life Sciences Computation Initiative Email: [email protected] Phone: +61 (0)3 903 55545 http://www.vlsci.org.au/ http://twitter.com/vlsci
