Hi Loris, Thank you for your reply.
I will definitely rethink about my goal and will try to restructure it. I will get back to this thread if i find something. Thank you for your time. :) Regards, Sourabh Shinde +49 176 4569 5546 <+49%20176%2045695546> sourabhshinde.cf On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Loris Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sourabh, > > sourabh shinde <[email protected]> writes: > > > Re: [slurm-dev] Re: Multifactor Priority Plugin for Small clusters > > > > 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) ? > > You may need to rethink what you are trying to achieve. You seem to > expect that the priority of a job intrinsically has something to do > with the resources allocated the job. This may be the case if you > define your factors appropriately, but primarily the two are not > connected and the priority just determines which order jobs should be > started in at a given point in time. > > From your example, what you seem to want is that three users, each with > a different degree of what I'll call "importance" can all start jobs at > the same time, but, depending on the amount of "importance", they can > use different numbers of nodes. With multifactor fairshare, the > priorities would have to be essentially equal and you would have to > restrict the number of nodes for the different degrees of "importance". > This brings with it other problems, such as what happens if only the > user with the lowest "importance" has jobs in the queue. Can he or she > use all the nodes, or do some remain idle in case a more "important" job > comes along? > > I think if you and your users can accept the idea of fairshare over a > period rather than at every point in time, you might save yourself a > great deal of time and trouble with Slurm. > > Regards > > Loris > > > 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] > > > > > > -- > Dr. Loris Bennett (Mr.) > ZEDAT, Freie Universität Berlin Email [email protected] >
