Raymond Wan <[email protected]> writes: > RQS sounds like what I'm looking for (for #1) -- the problem I'm > having is that users are being a bit greedy when I'm not watching.
It doesn't seem to have been said that RQS only affects scheduling the job, not what happens at run time. It specifically won't prevent a job using more cores than it's asked for (assuming slots≡cores). > Making all of the threads be on the same CPU is just a request from a > user...it feels difficult to satisfy, but I'll look into it too. I > guess having this as an option (-binding) for qsub, as suggested by > Reuti and William, for users to specify is ok. I guess this is more > like a user's wish list than a rule I'd like to enforce. You really want core binding, but as Reuti says, how a multi-threaded job uses the assigned cores is up to it, if it even chooses to obey it. Typically you set something like GOMP_CPU_AFFINITY (for GNU OpenMP) defined -- see past posts here. -- Community Grid Engine: http://arc.liv.ac.uk/SGE/ _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] https://gridengine.org/mailman/listinfo/users
