Uwe,

I do have features assigned at the moment, but from what I've read
that would require prolog scripting or user re-education.

It looks like the lowest hanging fruit is the topology.conf option.

Thanks,
John DeSantis



2015-02-03 12:46 GMT-05:00 Uwe Sauter <[email protected]>:
>
> Might be worth to look into node features (see
> http://slurm.schedmd.com/slurm.conf.html).
>
> Regards,
>
>         Uwe
>
> Am 03.02.2015 um 18:36 schrieb John Desantis:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Unfortunately, I have some confusion regarding how to achieve a global
>> and single partition for our users with several separate host groups
>> after reading the man pages and various documentation.
>>
>> When I say host groups, I mean separate sets of hardware which utilize
>> different infiniband fabrics and/or are accessible in different data
>> centers, different CPU architectures, etc.
>>
>> During initial testing periods, I was able to have use of a default
>> partition with all of the nodes allocated via the "Nodes="  value.
>> All was well until a latter set of nodes were added which had a
>> separate infiniband fabric.  Testing proved that applications were
>> attempting to utilize the nodes within the separate fabrics, which
>> failed miserably, and as a result we're using separate partitions -
>> which most users don't mind.
>>
>> Now that we're getting more users converted to Slurm, we're realizing
>> that some users don't know how to check for free partitions and
>> available hardware (boo!) and have grown used to our previous
>> scheduler configuration of 1 global queue.
>>
>> I'm looking into how to emulate this and I'm not quite clear if this
>> can be done using multiple partition definitions with a DEFAULT clause
>> or not.  I've looked at the topology/tree plugin as well and seeing
>> that you can specify either switches or nodes, if this would be the
>> preferred method to achieve 1 "global" partition which utilizes all of
>> the separate hardware pools and respects the separate host groups.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> John DeSantis
>>

Reply via email to