Hi, On 2016-07-25 22:46, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > I think that my initial question was too complex/detailed. Let me ask a > more open-ended one. Do folks have any strategies they'd like to share > on partition setups that favor paying customers while also allowing for > usage of spare resources by non-paying users? Thanks! > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 3:56pm, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote
>> o Our "lab" queue is for contributing users. Jobs in this queue run >> un-niced, and each lab has a number of slots in this queue equal to >> their share of the cluster. >> o Our "long" queue is for all users. Jobs in this queue run "nice -19". Really? You use the _lowest niceness_ == highest priority for all users? So the "un-niced" (nice 0, medium nicety) jobs by the contributing users get less cpu time? >> o We also have a "short" queue for quick jobs. These jobs run at "nice >> -10" and are limited to 30 minutes. Your short running jobs have a _lower_ (_negative_ nice == not nice) priority than your long running processes? The short running jobs are limited in time _and_ risk getting starved due to _less nice long running processes_? Maybe I misunderstood what you are trying to accomplish, but currently your usage of "nice" sounds wrong to me. Regards, Benjamin -- FSU Jena | JULIELab.de/Staff/Benjamin+Redling.html vox: +49 3641 9 44323 | fax: +49 3641 9 44321
