Hi,

Am 23.01.2014 um 10:17 schrieb Joe Borġ:

> First off, here is the qconf sq.  Anything obvious?
> 
> qname                 test.q
> hostlist              @test_rack1 @test_rack2 \
>                       @test_rack3
> seq_no                0
> load_thresholds       load_short=99

What type of machine is this, with a threshold of 99?

> suspend_thresholds    NONE
> nsuspend              1
> suspend_interval      00:05:00
> priority              0
> min_cpu_interval      00:05:00
> processors            UNDEFINED
> qtype                 BATCH INTERACTIVE
> ckpt_list             test.ckpt

We these jobs submitted using a checkpointing interface?
Is this queue subordinated to any other queue?

--Reuti


> pe_list               test.pe
> rerun                 TRUE
> slots                 1,[@test_rack1=8],[@test_rack2=8], \
>                       [@test_rack3=8]
> tmpdir                /tmp
> shell                 /bin/sh
> prolog                NONE
> epilog                NONE
> shell_start_mode      unix_behavior
> starter_method        NONE
> suspend_method        NONE
> resume_method         NONE
> terminate_method      NONE
> notify                00:00:60
> owner_list            NONE
> user_lists            NONE
> xuser_lists           NONE
> subordinate_list      NONE
> complex_values        NONE
> projects              NONE
> xprojects             NONE
> calendar              NONE
> initial_state         default
> s_rt                  INFINITY
> h_rt                  INFINITY
> s_cpu                 INFINITY
> h_cpu                 INFINITY
> s_fsize               INFINITY
> h_fsize               INFINITY
> s_data                INFINITY
> h_data                INFINITY
> s_stack               INFINITY
> h_stack               INFINITY
> s_core                INFINITY
> h_core                INFINITY
> s_rss                 INFINITY
> h_rss                 INFINITY
> s_vmem                INFINITY
> h_vmem                INFINITY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Joseph David Borġ 
> josephb.org
> 
> 
> On 17 January 2014 15:00, Reuti <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can you please post the output of `qconf -sq <qname>` for the queue in 
> question and the output of `qstat -j <job_id>` for such a job.
> 
> -- Reuti
> 
> 
> Am 16.01.2014 um 23:45 schrieb Joe Borġ:
> 
> > Only in qsub
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joseph David Borġ
> > josephb.org
> >
> >
> > On 16 January 2014 16:59, Reuti <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Am 16.01.2014 um 17:17 schrieb Joe Borġ:
> >
> > > I checked with qstat -j and the value displayed (in seconds) were correct.
> > >
> > > With qacct, I get
> > >
> > > failed       100 : assumedly after job
> > > exit_status  137
> > >
> > > Seeing as they were all killed at the exact same run time, I can't see 
> > > what else could have done it.
> >
> > As mentioned, was there something in the messages file like:
> >
> > 01/16/2014 17:54:46|  main|pc15370|W|job 10561.1 exceeded hard wallclock 
> > time - initiate terminate method
> >
> > Is the limit in the `qsub` command or in the queue definition?
> >
> > -- Reuti
> >
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > Joseph David Borġ
> > > josephb.org
> > >
> > >
> > > On 15 January 2014 20:30, Reuti <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Am 15.01.2014 um 18:55 schrieb Joe Borġ:
> > >
> > > > I have it working, except even if I put jobs run time as 24 hours, they 
> > > > all get killed after 6hours 40mins.
> > >
> > > 6h 40m = 360m + 40m = 400m = 24000s - did you forget by accident the 
> > > colons when you defined the limit?
> > >
> > >
> > > >  Looking at qstat -j shows the correct number of seconds against 
> > > > hard_resource_list h_rt.
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Was it really killed by SGE: is there any hint in the messages file of 
> > > the node, i.e. something like /var/spool/sge/node01/messages about the 
> > > reason for the kill ("loglevel log_info" in the `qconf -mconf`)?.
> > >
> > > -- Reuti
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Joseph David Borġ
> > > > josephb.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 15 January 2014 10:24, Reuti <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Am 15.01.2014 um 11:16 schrieb Joe Borġ:
> > > >
> > > > > Using h_rt kills the job after the allotted time.
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  Can't this be disabled?
> > > >
> > > > There is no feature in SGE to extend the granted runtime of a job (I 
> > > > heard such a thing is available in Torque).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  We only want to use it as a rough guide.
> > > >
> > > > If you want to do it only once in a time for a particular job:
> > > >
> > > > In this case you can just kill (or softstop) the `sgeexecd` on the 
> > > > node. You will lose control of the jobs on the node and the node (from 
> > > > SGE's view - `qhost` shows "-" for the node's load). So you have to 
> > > > check from time to time whether the job in question finished already, 
> > > > and then restart the `sgeexecd`. Also no new jobs will be scheduled to 
> > > > the node.
> > > >
> > > > Only at point of restarting the `sgeexecd` it will discover that the 
> > > > job finished (and send an email if applicable). Other (still) running 
> > > > jobs will gain supervision of their runtime again.
> > > >
> > > > -- Reuti
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Joseph David Borġ
> > > > > josephb.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 13 January 2014 17:43, Reuti <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > Am 13.01.2014 um 18:33 schrieb Joe Borġ:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks.  Can you please tell me what I'm doing wrong?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > qsub -q test.q -R y -l h_rt=60 -pe test.pe 1 small.bash
> > > > > > qsub -q test.q -R y -l h_rt=120 -pe test.pe 2 big.bash
> > > > > > qsub -q test.q -R y -l h_rt=60 -pe test.pe 1 small.bash
> > > > > > qsub -q test.q -R y -l h_rt=60 -pe test.pe 1 small.bash
> > > > >
> > > > > Only the parallel job needs "-R y".
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > job-ID  prior   name       user         state submit/start at     
> > > > > > queue                          slots ja-task-ID
> > > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >  156757 0.50000 small.bash joe.borg     qw    01/13/2014 16:45:18   
> > > > > >                                  1
> > > > > >  156761 0.50000 big.bash   joe.borg     qw    01/13/2014 16:55:31   
> > > > > >                                  2
> > > > > >  156762 0.50000 small.bash joe.borg     qw    01/13/2014 16:55:33   
> > > > > >                                  1
> > > > > >  156763 0.50000 small.bash joe.borg     qw    01/13/2014 16:55:34   
> > > > > >                                  1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...But when I release...
> > > > >
> > > > > max_reservation is set?
> > > > >
> > > > > But the reservation feature must also be seen in a running cluster. 
> > > > > If all four jobs are on hold and released at once, I wouldn't be 
> > > > > surprised if it's not strictly FIFO.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > job-ID  prior   name       user         state submit/start at     
> > > > > > queue                          slots ja-task-ID
> > > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >  156757 0.50000 small.bash joe.borg     r     01/13/2014 16:56:06 
> > > > > > test.q@test                  1
> > > > > >  156762 0.50000 small.bash joe.borg     r     01/13/2014 16:56:06 
> > > > > > test.q@test                  1
> > > > > >  156761 0.50000 big.bash   joe.borg     qw    01/13/2014 16:55:31   
> > > > > >                                 2
> > > > > >  156763 0.50000 small.bash joe.borg     qw    01/13/2014 16:55:34   
> > > > > >                                1
> > > > >
> > > > > As job 156762 has the same runtime as 156757, backfilling will occur 
> > > > > to use the otherwise idling core. Whether job 156762 is started or 
> > > > > not, the parallel one 156761 will start at the same time. Only 156763 
> > > > > shouldn't start.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Reuti
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Joseph David Borġ
> > > > > > josephb.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 13 January 2014 17:26, Reuti <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > Am 13.01.2014 um 17:24 schrieb Joe Borġ:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Reuti,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am using a PE, so that's fine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've not set either of the other 3.  Will the job be killed if 
> > > > > > > default_duration is exceeded?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No. It can be set to any value you like (like a few weeks), but it 
> > > > > > shouldn't be set to "INFINITY" as SGE judges infinity being smaller 
> > > > > > than infinity and so backfilling will always occur.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- Reuti
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Joseph David Borġ
> > > > > > > josephb.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 13 January 2014 16:16, Reuti <[email protected]> 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 13.01.2014 um 16:58 schrieb Joe Borġ:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm trying to set up an SGE queue and am having a problem 
> > > > > > > > getting the jobs to start in the right order.  Here is my 
> > > > > > > > example - test.q with 2 possible slots and the following jobs 
> > > > > > > > queued:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > job-ID  prior   name       user         state submit/start at   
> > > > > > > >   queue                          slots ja-task-ID
> > > > > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >  1           0.50000 small.bash joe.borg     qw    01/13/2014 
> > > > > > > > 15:43:16                                    1
> > > > > > > >  2           0.50000 big.bash   joe.borg     qw    01/13/2014 
> > > > > > > > 15:43:24                                    2
> > > > > > > >  3           0.50000 small.bash joe.borg     qw    01/13/2014 
> > > > > > > > 15:43:27                                    1
> > > > > > > >  4           0.50000 small.bash joe.borg     qw    01/13/2014 
> > > > > > > > 15:43:28                                    1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I want the jobs to run in that order, but (obviously), when I 
> > > > > > > > enable the queue, the small jobs fill the available slots and 
> > > > > > > > the big job has to wait for them to complete.  I'd like it 
> > > > > > > > setup so that only job 1 runs; finishes, then 2 (with both 
> > > > > > > > slots), then the final 2 jobs, 3 & 4, together.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've looked at -R y on submission, but doesn't seem to work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For the reservation to work (and it's only necessary to request 
> > > > > > > it for the parallel job) it's necessary to have suitable "h_rt" 
> > > > > > > requests for all jobs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Do you request any "h_rt" for all jobs?
> > > > > > > - Do you have a "default_duration" set to a proper value in the 
> > > > > > > schedule configuration otherwise?
> > > > > > > - Is "max_reservation" set to a value like 16?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -- Reuti
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Joseph David Borġ
> > > > > > > > josephb.org
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > users mailing list
> > > > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > > > https://gridengine.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
https://gridengine.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to