Thank you guys for your reply. @Loris : Yes, i had a look at Gang Scheduling which does not fits my requirements. In my case, a job which is scheduled should complete its execution and then the next job should start. this is what i need.
@Chris : I had already set up accounting. but the resource limits was new. I have set limits on QOS and Users now, constraints are working well. @Ole : Wiki page was really helpful. :) Also, does modifying the mult-ifactor logic would really help in my case ? if Not, what else can i do in order to go atleast close to what i need to achieve(the example referring in my previous post) ? Thanks and Regards Sourabh Regards, Sourabh Shinde +49 176 4569 5546 sourabhshinde.cf On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Loris Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sourabh, > > sourabh shinde <[email protected]> writes: > > > Multifactor Priority Plugin for Small clusters > > > > Hello Everyone, > > > > I am new to SLURM and trying to run it locally on my PC. I am using > > Multifactor plugin to assign priorities for the job. The problem is > > multi factor doesn’t work as needed on small clusters. I tried > > assigning weightage to the factors as per my need but the scheduler > > always schedule the job on FIFO basis. > > > > I am trying to find some alternative where making changes to the > > priority plugin code could make it work on small clusters. > > > > for e.g > > > > If I have 12 nodes on my cluster, and if 3 users A,B and C with QOS > > low, normal and high respectively submit their job for execution. I > > want that SLURM should assign not all nodes to the User A. Atleast 1 > > node should be assigned to the users B and C which are having low and > > normal priority. how can I achieve this ? > > > > PS: Gang scheduling and preemption are not possible in my case. > > > > Any help would be appreciated. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Regards, > > Sourabh Shinde > > I don't think you can achieve what you want with Fairshare and > Multifactor Priority. Fairshare looks at distributing resources fairly > between users over a *period* of time. At any *point* in time it is > perfectly possible for all the resources to be allocated to one user. > It is only over time that the allocation of resources will average out > to correspond to how you have configured the shares. > > If you only have a small amount of resources and a small number of > users, this may not work very well. Have you looked at Gang scheduling > without premption? > > Cheers, > > Loris > > -- > Dr. Loris Bennett (Mr.) > ZEDAT, Freie Universität Berlin Email [email protected] >
