Hi Douglas, Thanks for the insight. That may actually be desirable, and it's good to know that it's supported like that. I'll speak with my supervisors about what policies they are wanting giving these new details.
I appreciate your all's help. Jacob Chappell On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Douglas Jacobsen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> > >
