Am 11.12.2012 um 21:32 schrieb Gowtham: > I second Alex's thoughts. In all our clusters, we only use h_vmem
The difference is that virtual_free is only a guidance for SGE, but h_vmem will also be enforced. It depends on the working style of the users/groups which you want to prefer to use. Is only one group using a cluster I prefer virtual_free, as they are checking their results and prediction of memory requests, but with many groups in a cluster enforcing h_vmem might be more suitable to avoid oversubscription. -- Reuti > (to indicate the hard cap per job) and mem_free (a suggestion to > the scheduler as to which node the job should be started on). > > Best regards, > g > > -- > Gowtham > Information Technology Services > Michigan Technological University > > (906) 487/3593 > http://www.it.mtu.edu/ > > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2012, Alex Chekholko wrote: > > | Hi Jake, > | > | You can do 'qhost -F h_vmem,mem_free,virtual_free', that might be a useful > | view for you. > | > | In general, I've only ever used one of the three complexes above. > | > | Which one(s) do you have defined for the execution hosts? e.g. > | qconf -se compute-1-7 > | > | h_vmem will map to 'ulimit -v' > | mem_free just tracks 'free' > | virtual_free I'm not sure, I'd have to search the mailing list archives. > | > | I recommend you just use one of those three complexes. If you want to set a > | hard memory limit for jobs, use h_vmem. If you want to just suggest to the > | scheduler, use mem_free, it will use the current instantaneous mem_free > level > | during job scheduling (well, the lower of the consumable mem_free (if you > | havve that defined) and the actual current mem_free). > | > | What is the compelling reason to use virtual_free? I guess it includes > swap? > | > | Regards, > | Alex > | > | > | On 12/7/12 2:31 AM, Jake Carroll wrote: > | > Hi all. > | > > | > We've got some memory allocation/memory contention issues our users are > | > complaining about. Many are saying they can't get their jobs to run > | > because of memory resource issues. > | > > | > An example: > | > > | > scheduling info: > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run at host > | > "compute-2-3.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=4.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-0-12.local" because it offers only > hc:virtual_free=12.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-0-6.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=4.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-0-10.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=4.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-0-11.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=2.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-0-9.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=4.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-2-1.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=4.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-0-3.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=4.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-0-0.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=4.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-0-4.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=4.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-0-14.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=4.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-0-8.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=4.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-1-6.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=5.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-2-2.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=12.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-0-5.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=4.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-1-3.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=5.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-0-7.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=12.000G > | > (-l h_vmem=24G,virtual_free=24G) cannot run > | > at host "compute-1-5.local" because it offers only hc:virtual_free=5.000G > | > > | > Another example, of a user who's job is successfully running: > | > > | > hard resource_list: mem_free=100G > | > mail_list: xyz > | > notify: FALSE > | > job_name: mlmassoc_GRMi > | > stdout_path_list: NONE:NONE:/commented.out > | > jobshare: 0 > | > env_list: > | > script_file: /commented.out > | > usage 1: cpu=2:08:09:22, mem=712416.09719 GBs, > | > io=0.59519, vmem=3.379G, maxvmem=4.124G > | > > | > If I look at the qhost outputs: > | > > | > [root@cluster ~]# qhost > | > HOSTNAME ARCH NCPU LOAD MEMTOT MEMUSE SWAPTO > | > SWAPUS > | > > | > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | > global - - - - - - > | > - > | > compute-0-0 lx26-amd64 24 6.49 94.6G 5.5G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-1 lx26-amd64 24 10.71 94.6G 5.9G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-10 lx26-amd64 24 6.09 94.6G 5.1G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-11 lx26-amd64 24 6.10 94.6G 5.5G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-12 lx26-amd64 24 6.12 94.6G 8.1G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-13 lx26-amd64 24 8.41 94.6G 5.3G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-14 lx26-amd64 24 7.32 94.6G 7.6G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-15 lx26-amd64 24 10.42 94.6G 6.3G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-2 lx26-amd64 24 9.67 94.6G 5.5G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-3 lx26-amd64 24 7.17 94.6G 5.5G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-4 lx26-amd64 24 6.13 94.6G 4.0G 996.2M > | > 27.5M > | > compute-0-5 lx26-amd64 24 6.36 94.6G 5.4G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-6 lx26-amd64 24 6.35 94.6G 6.4G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-7 lx26-amd64 24 8.08 94.6G 6.0G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-8 lx26-amd64 24 6.12 94.6G 8.4G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-0-9 lx26-amd64 24 6.12 94.6G 5.9G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-1-0 lx26-amd64 80 30.13 378.7G 36.2G 0.0 > | > 0.0 > | > compute-1-1 lx26-amd64 80 28.93 378.7G 21.8G 996.2M > | > 168.1M > | > compute-1-2 lx26-amd64 80 29.84 378.7G 23.2G 996.2M > | > 46.8M > | > compute-1-3 lx26-amd64 80 27.03 378.7G 24.4G 996.2M > | > 39.3M > | > compute-1-4 lx26-amd64 80 28.05 378.7G 23.2G 996.2M > | > 122.0M > | > compute-1-5 lx26-amd64 80 27.47 378.7G 23.5G 996.2M > | > 161.4M > | > compute-1-6 lx26-amd64 80 25.07 378.7G 25.6G 996.2M > | > 91.5M > | > compute-1-7 lx26-amd64 80 26.98 378.7G 22.8G 996.2M > | > 115.9M > | > compute-2-0 lx26-amd64 32 11.03 47.2G 2.6G 1000.0M > | > 67.1M > | > compute-2-1 lx26-amd64 32 8.35 47.2G 3.7G 1000.0M > | > 11.4M > | > compute-2-2 lx26-amd64 32 10.10 47.2G 1.7G 1000.0M > | > 126.5M > | > compute-2-3 lx26-amd64 32 7.02 47.2G 3.4G 1000.0M > | > 11.3M > | > > | > So, it would seem to me we've got _plenty_ of actual resources free, but > | > our virtual_free complex seems to be doing something funny/misguided? > | > > | > I'm worried that our virtual_free complex might actually be doing more > | > harm than god here > | > > | > Here is an example of some qhost –F output on two different node types: > | > > | > compute-2-3 lx26-amd64 32 7.00 47.2G 3.4G 1000.0M > | > 11.3M > | > hl:arch=lx26-amd64 > | > hl:num_proc=32.000000 > | > hl:mem_total=47.187G > | > hl:swap_total=999.992M > | > hl:virtual_total=48.163G > | > hl:load_avg=7.000000 > | > hl:load_short=7.000000 > | > hl:load_medium=7.000000 > | > hl:load_long=7.060000 > | > hl:mem_free=43.788G > | > hl:swap_free=988.703M > | > hc:virtual_free=4.000G > | > hl:mem_used=3.398G > | > hl:swap_used=11.289M > | > hl:virtual_used=3.409G > | > hl:cpu=6.400000 > | > hl:m_topology=SCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTT > | > hl:m_topology_inuse=SCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTT > | > hl:m_socket=2.000000 > | > hl:m_core=16.000000 > | > hl:np_load_avg=0.218750 > | > hl:np_load_short=0.218750 > | > hl:np_load_medium=0.218750 > | > hl:np_load_long=0.220625 > | > > | > compute-1-7 lx26-amd64 80 27.83 378.7G 22.8G 996.2M > | > 115.9M > | > hl:arch=lx26-amd64 > | > hl:num_proc=80.000000 > | > hl:mem_total=378.652G > | > hl:swap_total=996.207M > | > hl:virtual_total=379.624G > | > hl:load_avg=27.830000 > | > hl:load_short=29.050000 > | > hl:load_medium=27.830000 > | > hl:load_long=27.360000 > | > hl:mem_free=355.814G > | > hl:swap_free=880.266M > | > hc:virtual_free=13.000G > | > hl:mem_used=22.838G > | > hl:swap_used=115.941M > | > hl:virtual_used=22.951G > | > hl:cpu=33.600000 > | > > | > > hl:m_topology=SCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTT > | > > | > > hl:m_topology_inuse=SCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTT > | > hl:m_socket=4.000000 > | > hl:m_core=40.000000 > | > hl:np_load_avg=0.347875 > | > hl:np_load_short=0.363125 > | > hl:np_load_medium=0.347875 > | > hl:np_load_long=0.342000 > | > > | > Our virtual free complex, designated as memory complex, relation <=, is > | > request able, is set as a consumable and has a default of 2. > | > > | > I guess what I'd like to aim for is some sane memory management and a > | > way of setting up some "rules" for my users so they can allocate > | > sensible amounts of RAM, that reflect really what the hosts/execution > | > nodes are capable of. > | > > | > I've got (unfortunately!) three types of nodes in the one queue. One > | > type has 384GB of RAM. One type has 96GB of RAM. One type has 48GB of RAM. > | > > | > Are my users just expecting too much? Are there some caps/resource > | > limits I should put in place to manage expectations or simplyinvest in > | > some "big memory" nodes for really large jobs and make a separate > | > highmem.q for such tasks? You'll see above some users have tried asking > | > for 100GB as the mem_free complex is used. > | > > | > Thoughts/experiences/ideas? > | > > | > Thanks for your time, all. > | > > | > --JC > | > > | _______________________________________________ > | users mailing list > | [email protected] > | https://gridengine.org/mailman/listinfo/users > | _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > [email protected] > https://gridengine.org/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] https://gridengine.org/mailman/listinfo/users
