Reuti <[email protected]> writes: >> Apologies for the confusion. However, that doesn't deaql with >> multi-level sorting on seqno and load. In an inhomogeneous cluster, >> you typically want to sort by seqno (node type) first. At >> least in that case, the second-level packing using slots for the load >> doesn't work for us in the serial case either. There's a >> one-liner fix for the parallel case in the Univa repo, but I don't know >> what's the problem in the serial case. > > To use "seqno" and as a second sort criteria "load" should work > automatically. What behavior do you notice instead: > > - only sorted by "slots"? > > - only sorted by "seqno" ignoring the load? (Is it the same with the > load_formula being np_load_avg or only with the consumable complex?)
Seqno seems to work, but with slots for the load, jobs seem to end up on random hosts. I don't know about with np_load_avg, though I guess its' worth trying inverting that to pefer most loaded (which won't work too wel with poorly-behaved jobs) -- Excuse the typping -- I have a broken wrist _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] https://gridengine.org/mailman/listinfo/users
