Cool. Thanks for the response guys. See in line:
On 12/12/12 6:45 AM, "Reuti" <[email protected]> wrote: >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. That is indeed our situation. It's very much a multi-tenancy environment [probably about 50 or 60 users and 10 groups of therein]. So, to that end, I should enable/allow users to make h_vmem requestable and set it as a consumable? Cheers. --JC > >-- 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=SCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTT >>CTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTT >> | > >> | > >>hl:m_topology_inuse=SCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTT >>CTTCTTCTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTSCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTTCTT >> | > 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 _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] https://gridengine.org/mailman/listinfo/users
