Hey Michael! On Friday, 11 May 2018 1:00:24 AM AEST Michael Jennings wrote:
> I'm surprised to hear that; this is the first time I've ever heard > that in regards to SLURM. I'd only ever heard folks complain about > TORQUE having that issue. Hmm, you might well be right, I might have done that work before we switched to Slurm on x86 (2013 - we always ran Slurm on BG/P and BG/Q). So yes, it could have been because we saw that issue on Torque instead and I assumed it would do the same on Slurm. Still, even in a threaded mode it would end up with threads blocked in the dreaded 'D' state if the health-check scripts end up blocking wouldn't it? Nice to hear NHC can work around that! All the best, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
