I believe you can use fairshare without decaying usage, the fairshares will only decline over time is all. This may mean that a user that consumes a large portion of their share early may have trouble getting priority later.
On Jun 5, 2017 7:10 AM, "Jacob Chappell" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Douglas, It'd be nice to have the ability to incorporate recent usage into the priority, but it seems like I can't do both that *and* have hard limits right? I think hard limits are most important between the two. I should just be able to set the FairshareWeight to 0 to ignore that component in the priority, but still enforce the limits with the GrpMins parameters right? Thanks, Jacob Chappell On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Douglas Jacobsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, I meant GrpTRESMins, but that usage is decayed, as Chris mentioned, > based on the decay rate half life. In your scenario however, it seems like > not decaying usage would make sense. > > Are you wanting to consider recent usage when making priority decisions? > > On Jun 5, 2017 5:53 AM, "Douglas Jacobsen" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think you could still set GrpTRESRunMins on an account or association >> to set hard quotas. >> >> On Jun 5, 2017 5:21 AM, "Jacob Chappell" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Chris, >>> >>> Thank you very much for the details and clarification. It's unfortunate >>> that you can't have both fairshare and fixed quotas. I'll pass this >>> information along to my supervisors. >>> >>> Jacob Chappell >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Christopher Samuel < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 03/06/17 07:03, Jacob Chappell wrote: >>>> >>>> > Sorry, that was a mouthful, but important. Does anyone know if Slurm >>>> can >>>> > accomplish this for me. If so how? >>>> >>>> This was how we used to run prior to switching to fair-share. >>>> >>>> Basically you set: >>>> >>>> PriorityDecayHalfLife=0 >>>> >>>> which stops the values decaying over time so once they hit their limit >>>> that's it. >>>> >>>> We also set: >>>> >>>> PriorityUsageResetPeriod=QUARTERLY >>>> >>>> so that limits would reset on the quarter boundaries. This was because >>>> we used to have fixed quarterly allocations for projects. >>>> >>>> We went to fair-share because of a change of the funding model for us >>>> meant previous rules were removed and so we could go to fair-share which >>>> meant a massive improvement in utilisation (compute nodes were no longer >>>> idle with jobs waiting but unable to run because of being out of quota). >>>> >>>> NOTE: You can't have both fairshare and hard quotas at the same time. >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> Chris >>>> -- >>>> Christopher Samuel Senior Systems Administrator >>>> Melbourne Bioinformatics - The University of Melbourne >>>> Email: [email protected] Phone: +61 (0)3 903 55545 >>>> >>> >>>
