We have weights and priority/multifactor. Jeff
From: Sistemas NLHPC [mailto:siste...@nlhpc.cl] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 12:01 PM To: Sarlo, Jeffrey S; Slurm User Community List Subject: Re: [slurm-users] Slurm configuration, Weight Parameter Thanks Jeff ! We upgrade slurm to 18.08.4 and now work with Weight ! but the parameter its possible running with plugin priority/multifactor ? Thanks in advance Regards El mar., 3 dic. 2019 a las 17:37, Sarlo, Jeffrey S (<jsa...@central.uh.edu<mailto:jsa...@central.uh.edu>>) escribió: Which version of slurm are you using? I know in the early versions of 18.08 prior to 18.08.04 there was a bug with weights not working. Once we got past 18.08.04, then weights worked for us. Jeff University of Houston - HPC From: slurm-users [mailto:slurm-users-boun...@lists.schedmd.com<mailto:slurm-users-boun...@lists.schedmd.com>] On Behalf Of Sistemas NLHPC Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2019 12:33 PM To: Slurm User Community List Subject: Re: [slurm-users] Slurm configuration, Weight Parameter Hi Renfro I am testing this configuration, test configuration and as clean as possible: ==== NodeName=devcn050 RealMemory=3007 Features=3007MB Weight=200 State=idle Sockets=2 CoresPerSocket=1 NodeName=devcn002 RealMemory=3007 Features=3007MB Weight=1 State=idle Sockets=2 CoresPerSocket=1 NodeName=devcn001 RealMemory=2000 Features=2000MB Weight=500 State=idle Sockets=2 CoresPerSocket=1 PartitionName=slims Nodes=devcn001,devcn002,devcn050 Default=yes Shared=yes State=up === In your config is necessary one plugin extra or parameter for option Weight? The configuration does not work as expected. Regards, El sáb., 30 nov. 2019 a las 10:30, Renfro, Michael (<ren...@tntech.edu<mailto:ren...@tntech.edu>>) escribió: We’ve been using that weighting scheme for a year or so, and it works as expected. Not sure how Slurm would react to multiple NodeName=DEFAULT lines like you have, but here’s our node settings and a subset of our partition settings. In our environment, we’d often have lots of idle cores on GPU nodes, since those jobs tend to be GPU-bound rather than CPU-bound. So in one of our interactive partitions, we let non-GPU jobs take up to 12 cores of a GPU node. Additionally, we have three memory configurations in our main batch partition. We want to bias jobs to running on the smaller-memory nodes by default. And the same principle applies to our GPU partition, where the smaller-memory GPU nodes get jobs before the larger-memory GPU node. ===== NodeName=gpunode[001-003] CoresPerSocket=14 RealMemory=382000 Sockets=2 ThreadsPerCore=1 Weight=10011 Gres=gpu:2 NodeName=gpunode004 CoresPerSocket=14 RealMemory=894000 Sockets=2 ThreadsPerCore=1 Weight=10021 Gres=gpu:2 NodeName=node[001-022] CoresPerSocket=14 RealMemory=62000 Sockets=2 ThreadsPerCore=1 Weight=10201 NodeName=node[023-034] CoresPerSocket=14 RealMemory=126000 Sockets=2 ThreadsPerCore=1 Weight=10211 NodeName=node[035-040] CoresPerSocket=14 RealMemory=254000 Sockets=2 ThreadsPerCore=1 Weight=10221 PartitionName=any-interactive Default=NO MinNodes=1 MaxNodes=4 MaxTime=02:00:00 AllowGroups=ALL PriorityJobFactor=3 PriorityTier=1 DisableRootJobs=NO RootOnly=NO Hidden=NO Shared=NO GraceTime=0 PreemptMode=OFF ReqResv=NO DefMemPerCPU=2000 AllowAccounts=ALL AllowQos=ALL LLN=NO MaxCPUsPerNode=12 ExclusiveUser=NO OverSubscribe=NO OverTimeLimit=0 State=UP Nodes=node[001-040],gpunode[001-004] PartitionName=batch Default=YES MinNodes=1 MaxNodes=40 DefaultTime=1-00:00:00 MaxTime=30-00:00:00 AllowGroups=ALL PriorityJobFactor=1 PriorityTier=1 DisableRootJobs=NO RootOnly=NO Hidden=NO Shared=NO GraceTime=0 PreemptMode=OFF ReqResv=NO DefMemPerCPU=2000 AllowAccounts=ALL AllowQos=ALL LLN=NO ExclusiveUser=NO OverSubscribe=NO OverTimeLimit=0 State=UP Nodes=node[001-040] PartitionName=gpu Default=NO MinNodes=1 DefaultTime=1-00:00:00 MaxTime=30-00:00:00 AllowGroups=ALL PriorityJobFactor=1 PriorityTier=1 DisableRootJobs=NO RootOnly=NO Hidden=NO Shared=NO GraceTime=0 PreemptMode=OFF ReqResv=NO DefMemPerCPU=2000 AllowAccounts=ALL AllowQos=ALL LLN=NO MaxCPUsPerNode=16 QoS=gpu ExclusiveUser=NO OverSubscribe=NO OverTimeLimit=0 State=UP Nodes=gpunode[001-004] ===== > On Nov 29, 2019, at 8:09 AM, Sistemas NLHPC > <siste...@nlhpc.cl<mailto:siste...@nlhpc.cl>> wrote: > > External Email Warning > This email originated from outside the university. Please use caution when > opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to requests. > Hi All, > > Thanks all for your posts > > Reading the documentation of Slurm and other sites like Niflheim > https://wiki.fysik.dtu.dk/niflheim/Slurm_configuration#node-weight (Ole Holm > Nielsen) the parameter "Weight" is to assign a value to the nodes, with this > you can have priority in the nodes. But I have not obtained positive results. > > Thanks in advance > > Regards > > El sáb., 23 nov. 2019 a las 14:18, Chris Samuel > (<ch...@csamuel.org<mailto:ch...@csamuel.org>>) escribió: > On 23/11/19 9:14 am, Chris Samuel wrote: > > > My gut instinct (and I've never tried this) is to make the 3GB nodes be > > in a separate partition that is guarded by AllowQos=3GB and have a QOS > > called "3GB" that uses MinTRESPerJob to require jobs to ask for more > > than 2GB of RAM to be allowed into the QOS. > > Of course there's nothing to stop a user requesting more memory than > they need to get access to these nodes, but that's a social issue not a > technical one. :-) > > -- > Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Berkeley, CA, USA >
