Bill and Bruce, > We are just in order to get fairshare. I'm not gonna do that in production > though, that sounds dangerous.
You mean you don't want to be the guinea pig?! >>The reservations in the database are only for historical purposes, they >>don't get read in from the slurmctld. The DBD should be purging them as >>configured you shouldn't have the manually do anything. I did see that as well. My original thought process was to remove any "connection" associated with the reservations from the system, and the DB table looked like a solid target; sadly, I completely neglected to verify via the source how the reservation states were handled via slurmctld (apologies, Bruce!). Our reservations have worked 99% of the time in 14.x (we started with 14.03.2-2, then upgraded to 14.03.6, and now 14.11.3). Maybe one of the developers could comment? John DeSantis 2015-07-07 17:48 GMT-04:00 Bill Barth <[email protected]>: > > On 7/7/15, 4:40 PM, "Bruce Roberts" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >>The reservations in the database are only for historical purposes, they >>don't get read in from the slurmctld. The DBD should be purging them as >>configured you shouldn't have the manually do anything. > > I would have thought so. Any thoughts on my strangely overlapping > reservations? > > Bill.
