You're welcome! Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 18, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Christopher B Coffey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Aaron! > > Yes, the QoS priority is already 0 for the free account. But, what you’ve > suggested is definitely an ok workaround; setting the other QoS’ to have a > priority > 0. Thanks for the suggestion! > > Best, > Chris > > — > Christopher Coffey > High-Performance Computing > Northern Arizona University > 928-523-1167 > > > > >> On 2/18/15, 6:31 AM, "Aaron Knister" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Chris, >> >> Have you tried setting the priority of the wow itself to 0? If you set >> the priority of the other QOS's to something like 1000 this should >> prevent a "free" job from being scheduled ahead of a non free job. I >> think you'll also want to set the various PriorityWeight* settings such >> that the QOS priority is weighted heavily enough to ensure it has the >> final say above all other factors. Perhaps you could set the QOS priority >> weight to be an order of magnitude above all other weights. Maybe this'll >> help: http://slurm.schedmd.com/priority_multifactor.html#general >> >> Hope that helps! >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Feb 17, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Christopher B Coffey >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, thanks for the reply! >>> >>> Unfortunately, that option only dictates how much time is counted toward >>> fairshare use. I have that set at 0, which works well for what it’s >>> meant >>> for. >>> >>> But still I can’t think of a way to exclude an account from the extra >>> priority points by the various factors: partition, job size .. Etc. >>> >>> — >>> Christopher Coffey >>> High-Performance Computing >>> Northern Arizona University >>> 928-523-1167 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 2/17/15, 8:09 AM, "Mehdi Denou" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Parhaps setting UsageFactor to "0" for this qos could do what you're >>>> looking for ? >>>> >>>> Le 13/02/2015 18:49, Christopher B Coffey a écrit : >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I have this idea of a “free” account/qos. This account is preemptable >>>>> by >>>>> all other qos’. This account does not have any fairshare. It’s >>>>> almost >>>>> complete. But this account still receives priority points from the >>>>> factors like: job size, partition, … Etc. >>>>> >>>>> Is it possible to have an account excluded from priority points given >>>>> by >>>>> factor weights? Apologies if this should be obvious, I haven’t >>>>> figured >>>>> it >>>>> out yet from the man pages. >>>>> >>>>> This free account could be default for special accounts like >>>>> affiliates >>>>> with low priority. Or maybe folks want to preserve their fairshare >>>>> points >>>>> for debugging, short type jobs, or ones that checkpoint that can deal >>>>> with >>>>> being preempted. >>>>> >>>>> There is also no way to subtract priority points from qos’ with >>>>> sacctmgr >>>>> from what I can tell. >>>>> >>>>> It looks like in a situation like this, the qos should have the >>>>> “NoReserve” flag set too, correct? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Chris >>>> >>>> -- >>>> --- >>>> Mehdi Denou >>>> International HPC support >>>> +336 45 57 66 56 >
