+1 I also like this idea. Making this a configurable option makes sense -- it would be nice to have the default set to ascending order as you describe.
Aaron C On Feb 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Aaron Peeler <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like this ability, it would definitely simplify the mappings. > > I think it should be applied to both # or procs. and memory. > > I'm fine with either approach to just reserve it so it matches the min > valus or to have an option to choose which method. > > Aaron > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Josh Thompson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'd like to get people's thoughts about reversing how computers are assigned >> for reservations relative to the specified amount of RAM for an image. >> Currently, the scheduler builds a list of computers that can fulfill a given >> reservation and orders them by specs of the machine by this priority: >> >> first by procspeed * proc number >> next by amount of RAM, >> finally by network speed >> >> Each of those is ordered in a descending order (i.e. best specs at the top). >> Then, the highest rated machine is given to the user. >> >> That algorithm came from our initial design back in 2004 when our nodes >> didn't >> have lots of RAM, didn't have a high variability of contained RAM, didn't >> have >> more RAM that some of the OSes could handle, and we weren't doing any >> virtualization. The idea was that the user would get the best available >> machine for the reservation. >> >> Now, with nodes having very high amounts of RAM, a high variability of >> contained RAM, and having WinXP images that can't even use more than 4 GB of >> RAM, I'm wondering if ordering for RAM (and maybe all specs) should be >> reversed. This would make it so that priority is given to assign a node that >> just meets the specs for the image rather than assigning the best one >> available. We're running in to cases where we have some bare metal nodes >> with >> 24 GB or more of RAM, but still have WinXP images available to users. We >> have >> to map things so that the WinXP images cannot get deployed to the higher RAM >> nodes to keep from wasting the RAM when other users would like to have it. >> Things would be simplified if we could just have a more general pool and have >> the scheduler take care of keeping resources from being wasted. >> >> What do others think? I could also make it an option in conf.php as to which >> method is used. However, unless people feel it useful to keep the current >> method, it would be simpler to just reverse the ordering. Also, if you think >> it is a good idea to reverse it, should all specs be reversed, or just RAM? >> >> Thanks, >> Josh >> - -- >> - ------------------------------- >> Josh Thompson >> VCL Developer >> North Carolina State University >> >> my GPG/PGP key can be found at pgp.mit.edu >> >> All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which >> are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public >> Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAlEiSTwACgkQV/LQcNdtPQN3qQCeLaxbUg9Rh6F4mpQrcn1mh5jz >> VSEAn2C35CQCIqLnRUJFansQ5zKIhlNa >> =KVAL >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > > > -- > Aaron Peeler > Program Manager > Virtual Computing Lab > NC State University > > All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which > are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public > Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
