Paul, Thanks for the response, I tested and activated LLN on a per partition basis in our cluster. Works exactly as described and satisfied my need perfectly. Thanks! -- Aravindh Sampathkumar aravi...@fastmail.com
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Paul Edmon wrote: > I recommend the LLN option for partitions: > *LLN* Schedule resources to jobs on the least loaded nodes (based upon > the number of idle CPUs). This is generally only recommended for an > environment with serial jobs as idle resources will tend to be highly > fragmented, resulting in parallel jobs being distributed across many > nodes. Note that node *Weight* takes precedence over how many idle > resources are on each node. Also see the *SelectParameters* > configuration parameter *CR_LLN* to use the least loaded nodes in > every partition.> -Paul Edmon- > On 11/15/2018 4:25 AM, Aravindh Sampathkumar wrote: >> Hi All. >> >> I'm having some trouble finding appropriate section of the >> documentation to change slurm resource allocation policy.>> >> We have configured CPU and memory as consumable resources, and our >> nodes can run multiple jobs as long as there are CPU memory >> available.>> >> What I want is for Slurm to spread jobs across all available servers >> in a partition instead of loading up few servers while others are >> idling.>> >> For example, I have a partition nav which has 5 compute nodes(node[1- >> 5]) dedicated to it.>> when users submit 3 jobs to nav partition, each >> requesting 1 CPU core >> and 1 GB of memory, SLURM schedules all the jobs in node1 because it >> has enough CPU cores and memory to satisfy job requirements. nodes - >> 2,3,4,5 are idle.>> >> What I want instead is for slurm to schedule job1 to node1, job2 to >> node2, job3 to node3.. and then in the future if there are more jobs >> than there are nodes, slurm must utilise the rest of resources >> available in node1.>> >> >> Why? >> A small group that is using this partition is concerned that all >> their jobs get scheduled on the same node, and they need to share >> network bandwidth, and bandwidth to local disk. If they were spread >> out instead, they could use better bandwidth.>> >> Appreciate any advice how I can make this happen. >> >> Thanks, >> Aravindh Sampathkumar >> aravi...@fastmail.com >> >>
