No, I'll fix the parser as we should be able to run anyway. Just can't guarantee which queue the job will end up in, but at least it -will- run.
On Mar 15, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 at 4:41pm, Reuti wrote > >> Am 15.03.2012 um 15:50 schrieb Ralph Castain: >>> >>> On Mar 15, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Reuti wrote: >>> >>>> Am 15.03.2012 um 15:37 schrieb Ralph Castain: >>>> >>>>> FWIW: I see the problem. Our parser was apparently written assuming every >>>>> line was a unique host, so it doesn't even check to see if there is >>>>> duplication. Easy fix - can shoot it to you today. >>>> >>>> But even with the fix the nice value will be the same for all processes >>>> forked there. Either all have the nice value of his low priority queue or >>>> the high priority queue. >>> >>> Agreed - nothing I can do about that, though. We only do the one qrsh call, >>> so the daemons are going to fall into a single queue, and so will all their >>> children. In this scenario, it isn't clear to me (from this discussion) >>> that I can control which queue gets used >> >> Correct. > > Which I understand. Our queue setup is admittedly a bit wonky (which is > probably why I'm the first one to have this issue). I'm much more concerned > with things not crashing than with them absolutely having the "right" nice > levels. :) > >>> Should I? >> >> I can't speak for the community. Personally I would say: don't distribute >> parallel jobs among different queues at all, as some applications will use >> some internal communication about the environment variables of the master >> process to distribute them to the slaves (even if SGE's `qrsh -inherit ...` >> is called without -V, and even if Open MPI is not told to forward and >> specific environment variable). If you have a custom application it can work >> of course, but with closed source ones you can only test and get the >> experience whether it's working or not. >> >> Not to mention the timing issue of differently niced processes. Adjusting >> the SGE setup of the OP would be the smarter way IMO. > > And I agree with that as well. I understand if the decision is made to leave > the parser the way it is, given that my setup is outside the norm. > > -- > Joshua Baker-LePain > QB3 Shared Cluster Sysadmin > UCSF > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
