On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:09:50 -0800 Szilárd Páll <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sure, admin involvement can be a bottleneck, though. Is there any way > that does not require admin involvement? Yes, just do it the other way around, excluding the rest of the nodes with --exclude. It's kind of a hack but provides the desired behaviour :-) Inigo > -- > Szilárd > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Slurm User <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > An admin could set up a partition of the certain set of nodes and > > you can then use that partition. > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Szilárd Páll <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> So is there a way to ask SLURM to pick from a certain set of nodes > >> without specifying the very nodes that I want to run on? > >> -- > >> Szilárd > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:47 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > The documentation was out of date. That behaviour was too > >> > confusing for > >> many > >> > users. > >> > > >> > > >> > Quoting Szilárd Páll <[email protected]>: > >> >> > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> If I try to pass an explicit node list to SLURM which contains a > >> >> larger number of nodes than requested, I get an error: > >> >> sbatch -N 1 --nodelist=nid0[1543-1545] test.sh > >> >> sbatch: error: Batch job submission failed: Node count > >> >> specification invalid > >> >> > >> >> This contradicts with the man pages: > >> >> "If you specify a maximum node count and the host list > >> >> contains more nodes, the extra node names will be silently > >> >> ignored." > >> >> > >> >> Do I interpret things correctly and this is simply a bug? > >> >> > >> >> Cheers, > >> >> -- > >> >> Szilárd > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Morris "Moe" Jette > >> > CTO, SchedMD LLC > >> > Commercial Slurm Development and Support > >> > > > >
