Loris Bennett <loris.benn...@fu-berlin.de> writes: > Loris Bennett <loris.benn...@fu-berlin.de> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> Some while ago I defined several QOS thus: >> >> Name Priority MaxWall MaxJobs MaxSubmit >> ---------- ---------- ----------- ------- --------- >> normal 0 >> short 100000 03:00:00 10 20 >> medium 10000 3-00:00:00 100 200 >> long 1000 14-00:00:00 >> >> This worked OK with Slurm 17.02.7 and previous versions. The default >> QOS for all users was 'long' and all users were able to use both 'short' >> and 'medium'. >> >> Recently, still using version 17.02.7, I added a restriction on the >> number of cores per user thus: >> >> Name Priority MaxWall MaxJobs MaxSubmit MaxTRESPU >> ---------- ---------- ----------- ------- --------- ------------- >> normal 0 >> short 100000 03:00:00 10 20 cpu=20 >> medium 10000 3-00:00:00 100 200 cpu=200 >> long 1000 14-00:00:00 >> >> However, now users are unable to use 'short' and 'medium' as the >> following error is produces by 'sbatch': >> >> sbatch: error: Batch job submission failed: Invalid qos specification >> >> Deleting the MaxTRESPerUser settings does not fix the problem. >> >> My assumption is that that some change in this or a previous version was >> made in the way QOS can be accessed by associations, but this change has >> only now manifested itself after the QOS have been updated. >> >> Can anyone confirm this? > > In a similar vein, the documentation for 'sacctmgr' says > > Note: the QOS that can be used at a given account in the hierarchy are > inherited by the children of that account. > > However, if I do the following: > > $ sacctmgr modify account name=root set qos+=medium,short > > the result is > > Modified account associations... > C = soroban A = root > C = soroban A = anemometry U = alice > C = soroban A = anemometry U = bob > C = soroban A = barometry U = carol > C = soroban A = barometry U = dave > C = soroban A = calorimetry U = ethel > ... > > To me this looks as if the QOS are in fact being explicitly added to > each association. In this case, will a new association added within > this hierarchy automatically be associated with the QOS available to the > other associations?
Can anyone shed any light on this issue? Cheers, Loris -- Dr. Loris Bennett (Mr.) ZEDAT, Freie Universität Berlin Email loris.benn...@fu-berlin.de