On 8 December 2017 at 18:07, Loris Bennett <loris.benn...@fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Lachlan Musicman <data...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> Running sshare -l only shows the root user: > >> Account User RawShares NormShares RawUsage NormUsage EffectvUsage > FairShare LevelFS GrpTRESMins TRESRunMins > >> -------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------- > ----------- ------------- ---------- ---------- > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > >> root 0.000000 0 1.000000 cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0 > >> > >> So I am guessing the user information is indeed not being linked to > >> the slurmdbd. What do I need to do to set up this? To be honest the > >> documentation is very sparse in details of how to set up the > >> slurmdb. > > > > Did that end up being the problem? > > > > I've had trouble with QoS in the past as well, and now that I use > > sshare -l (actually, I used sshare > > --format=Account,User,FairShare,RawShares,NormShares), I note that > > none of my Accounts have any FairShare. For whatever reason, I > > presumed that NormShare would be sufficient? > > > > Do we need to explicitly list the FS? > > Does "none of my Accounts have any FairShare" mean no value of a value > of zero? If your account don't have any value for FairShare that would > suggest that fairshare isn't set up properly. If the value is zero, > then all the shares have been used up. > > While we never had everyone ending up with zero FairShare, we did > initially have all the active users with zero. To get around this we > had to increase PriorityWeightFairshare by a couple of orders of > magnitude to be able to distinguish active users from really active > users. > > You might want to look at the output of 'sshare -la' and 'sprio -l'. > It's not 0. For whatever reason, I haven't set it. I presume it was because I thought that the FS was inherited from the parent. Cheers L.
