Thank you all. This has been extremely useful! Smauel Fulcomer sent me some direct emails as well since he was having trouble sending it to this list. I think I understand my confusion now.
I thought a Slurm user in the accounting DB has to correspond to an actual uid on Linux. I guess that's not the case. Here's the example Sam provided me with which I think is essentially the same as what Daniel is suggesting: In the scheme you're thinking of, I'd just create a Linux user called something like "webbatch", and then in the SLURMdb, something like this: sacctmgr -i create account webbatch ...and then, as web requests come in.... sacctmgr list account $email | grep $email || (sacctmgr -i create account $email parent=webbatch; sacctmgr -i create user webbatch account=$email) sacctmgr doesn't return an error if the query doesn't match a record. Note that the "create user" is really just creating a record associating (thus the SLURM context of "association") a user name with the new account, and in this case, the default cluster and all partitions/queues. "sacctmgr list assoc where user=webbatch" will return all such records (one for each association of an account with the user name webbatch). Linux user "webbatch" would be used to submit all jobs, but with "--account=$email". You'd then have accounting information for all e-mail addresses (and e-mail domains). On 1/5/16, 11:52 AM, "Daniel Letai" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On 01/05/2016 05:25 PM, GOLPAYEGANI, NAVID (GSFC-6190) wrote: >> Thank you for the quick response. See below for my reply. >> >> On 1/4/16, 6:25 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Quoting "GOLPAYEGANI, NAVID (GSFC-6190)" <[email protected]>: >>>> Hi, >>>> SLURM newbie here. Anybody have suggestions on how to do the >>>> scheduling >>>> for a SLURM cluster for web submissions? We take orders from a webpage >>>> and >>>> submit them as a single account >>> By "account" do you mean Slurm "bank account" (and different user IDs)? >> Yes a single SLURM bank account which is the same as a single linux >> account in our case. >I think you misunderstood - a slurm account is only used if using >accounting w/ a DB. Linux user IDs are a different matter, and should >correspond to users under slurm accounts. > >If a single userid is used for all jobs, you might wish to consider job >size based priority (not sure, but I think you don't need accounting for >that). >I would advise creating slurm accounting with users - then you can use >fairshare/fairtree (not sure if there is a difference when all users >under same acct) to automate job scheduling prioritization. >> I don't think we can realistically create individual Slurm bank accounts >> for all the web users since the system is open to the world. Anybody can >> request our data products with some sort of post processing and all we >>ask >> for is for their email address (honor system we don't verify). The >>purpose >> of the email address is to notify them when their post processing job >>has >> finished and is ready for download. >Not different accounts - just different users with same account: >You could add this to whatever wrapper you're using to parse the job >from the web form: >sacctmgr -i -Q add user "$1" DefaultAccount=web-users > >>> There are a bunch of limits that can be configured by user, account, >>> QOS (quality of service). See: >>> http://slurm.schedmd.com/resource_limits.html >>> >>> Job's can also be assigned a priority to that under-serviced users and >>> accounts get higher job priorities (i.e. jobs may not prioritized by >>> submit order). For more information about job priorities, see: >>> http://slurm.schedmd.com/priority_multifactor.html >> I've read those but those would require each web user to be listed with >>an >> account in our Slurm database, correct? My initial instinct is that >>that's >> a bad for several reasons. It'd be ever growing list of users, it'd >> initially start off with 10s of thousands of entries, and assuming Slurm >> bank accounts are alphanumeric only we'd have to convert email addresses >> to unique alphanumeric account string (md5?). >> >> Am I on the right path with my thinking? >> >> Thanks again for the quick response and all the help so far. >> >> Navid
