I think that's the AllocNode on the Partition? See here http://slurm.schedmd.com/slurm.conf.html
and http://slurm.schedmd.com/scontrol.html (search for AllocNode on both) Cheers L. ------ The most dangerous phrase in the language is, "We've always done it this way." - Grace Hopper On 18 June 2016 at 10:16, Owen LaGarde <[email protected]> wrote: > Never mind, found it in the bottom of the programmer_guide page. Yes I > was being stupid. "Frontend" to slurm is not at all synonymous with > "frontend" in the HPC community. In fact it's the opposite -- a slurm > "frontend" not only is allocatable, but is allocatable as an arbitrary > number of nodes under one slurmd instance. > > So what's the equivalent, in slurm, of distinguishing between nodes that > may and nodes that may not pass requests to the controller, all such nodes > *not* being participants in any resource pool under that controller? > > Example: under PBSPro, I can set a restriction on access to management > commands by login and/or host and/or domain like this: > > qmgr -c 'set server managers = "{login}@{host|*}.{domain},...' > > and can similarly restrict who can talk to the scheduler at all. We tend > to use this sort of thing to allow, for example, a set of dedicated login > nodes in a cluster to submit jobs and query status, while a subset of > logins on the same nodes can also run administrative PBS subcommands, and a > third set of external-to-the-cluster hosts is allowed to only query > status. What's the most appropriate (slurm-like?) way to do this under > slurm? > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Owen LaGarde <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm fairly new to slurm, bear with me...I think I'm stupidly missing >> something obvious... >> >> Is --enable-front-end doing something significant *other* than enabling >> the 'FrontendName=' (slurm.conf) option? I ask because having "frontend" >> nodes -- that are allowed to communicate with the scheduler, query status, >> [possibly] submit tasks or request resources, etc -- is a pretty common >> practice at the scales where slurm excels. Or, at least, it is in the HPC >> arena (yes, this could easily be weird only to me). I see it's in the >> configure, but not in the specfile even as a --with or --slurm-with. Why >> have frontend support out-of-the-box only for those building with the >> BlueGene option instead of on-by-default? >> >> As a counter-example: historically we've run PBSPro, LSF, NQS, and >> "other" resource managers on a number of architectures which by design >> required frontends -- their "backend" nodes didn't support user logins or >> interactive environments. All arch's that didn't require frontends had >> them anyway; our customers demanded them as separate, un-allocatable >> resources for login activities, specifically to insulate the impact of >> those activities from the compute pool. So seeing a batch system that can >> do what slurm does, but doesn't support frontends by default, that makes me >> think I'm missing something obvious here about slurm frontend support. >> >> >
