I would also recommend QOS if you absolutely can't use fairshare. Set up
a QOS per institute with a GrpNodes limit that is the correct ratio and
only allow institute members to their QOS (make it their default too).
Alternatively you can also do one account per institute and set GrpNodes
the
We have a bit of a similar situation here. A possible solution that may
work for you is QoS. The QoS's behave like a synthetic partition. That
way you can have a single partition but multiple QoS's which can flex
around down nodes.
From the experimentation I have done with them this may b
I would totally agree with you but university administration has to
justify the part of the first institute (because it was paid with
federal money) while the other institute paid for themselves and can do
with their part what they want.
This is the reason for the current unflexible mapping betwe
Yes, yes it does. I don't mean to be harsh, but doing it their way is a
potentially huge waste of resources. Why not get each institute to agree
to share the whole machine in proportion to what they paid? Each institute
gets an allocation of time (through accounting) and a fairshare fraction
in th
Hi Bill,
if I understand the concept of fairshare correctly, this could result in
a situation where one institute uses all resources.
Because of this fairshare is out of the question as I have to enforce
the ratio between the institutes - I cannot allow usage that would
result in one institute u
Why not make one partition and use fairshare to balance the usage over
time? That way both institutes can run large jobs that span the whole
machine when others are not using it.
Bill.
--
Bill Barth, Ph.D., Director, HPC
bba...@tacc.utexas.edu| Phone: (512) 232-7069
Office: ROC 1.435
