Hi Sounds like this change will affect environments which offer bare-metal reservations.
For virtual-only environments it will be the same since reservation is created based on resources listed in the image properties. Does it sound right? Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: Josh Thompson <[email protected]> Date: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:31 am Subject: thoughts on reversing computer selection relative to RAM > -----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----- > >
