Hi Chris, We use a python wrapper to do this but the basic command to retrieved account minutes is:
'scontrol -o show assoc_mgr | grep "^QOS='+account+’"' You then have to parse the output for "GrpTRESMins=“. The output will be two numbers. The first is the limit, or N for no limit, while the next one in parenthesis is the consumed. You can also report by user with: 'sreport -t minutes -T cpu,gres/gpu -nP cluster AccountUtilizationByUser start='+date_start+' end='+date_end+' account='+account+' format=login,used’ If you are willing to accept some rounding errors! With slight variations, and some oddities, this can also be used to limit GPU utilisation, as is in our case as you can deduce from the previous command. Best, Miguel Afonso Oliveira > On 23 Jun 2022, at 17:58, Christopher Benjamin Coffey <chris.cof...@nau.edu> > wrote: > > Hi Miguel, > > This is intriguing as I didn't know about this possibility, in dealing with > fairshare, and limited priority minutes qos at the same time. How can you > verify how many minutes have been used of this qos that has been setup with > grptresmins ? Is that possible? Thanks. > > Best, > Chris > > -- > Christopher Coffey > High-Performance Computing > Northern Arizona University > 928-523-1167 > > > > On 6/23/22, 9:44 AM, "slurm-users on behalf of Miguel Oliveira" > <slurm-users-boun...@lists.schedmd.com > <mailto:slurm-users-boun...@lists.schedmd.com> on behalf of > miguel.olive...@uc.pt <mailto:miguel.olive...@uc.pt>> wrote: > > Hi Gérard, > It is not exactly true that you have no solution to limit projects. If you > implement each project as an account then you can create an account qos with > the NoDecay flags. > This will not affect associations so priority and fair share are not impacted. > > The way we do it is to create a qos: > > sacctmgr -i --quiet create qos "{{ item.account }}" set > flags=DenyOnLimit,NoDecay GrpTRESMin=cpu=600 > > > And then use this qos when the account (project) is created: > > sacctmgr -i --quiet add account "{{ item.account }}" Parent="{{ item.parent > }}" QOS="{{ item.account }}" Fairshare=1 Description="{{ item.description }}” > > We even have a slurm bank implementation to play along with this technique > and it has not failed us yet too much! :) > > Hope that helps, > > Miguel Afonso Oliveira > > > > On 23 Jun 2022, at 14:57, gerard....@cines.fr wrote: > > Hi Ole and B/H, > > Thanks for your answers. > > > > You're right B/H, and as I tuned TRESBillingWeights option to only counts > cpu, in my case : nb of reserved core = "TRES billing cost" > > You're right again I forgot the PriorityDecayHalfLife parameter which is also > used by fairshare Multifactor Priority. > We use multifactor priority to manage the priority of jobs in the queue, and > we set the values of PriorityDecayHalfLife and PriorityUsageResetPeriod > according to these needs. > So PriorityDecayHalfLife will decay GrpTRESRaw and GrpTRESMins can't be used > as we want. > > Setting the NoDecay flag to a QOS could be an option but I suppose it also > impact fairshare Multifactor Priority of all jobs using this QOS. > > This means I have no solution to limit a project as we want, unless schedMD > changes its behavior or adds a new feature. > > Thanks a lot. > > Regards, > Gérard > <http://www.cines.fr/ <http://www.cines.fr/>> > > > ________________________________________ > > De: "Bjørn-Helge Mevik" <b.h.me...@usit.uio.no> > À: slurm-us...@schedmd.com > Envoyé: Jeudi 23 Juin 2022 12:39:27 > Objet: Re: [slurm-users] GrpTRESMins and GrpTRESRaw usage > > > > > Ole Holm Nielsen <ole.h.niel...@fysik.dtu.dk> writes: > > Hi Bjørn-Helge, > > > > Hello, Ole! :) > > On 6/23/22 09:18, Bjørn-Helge Mevik wrote: > > Slurm the same internal variables are used for fairshare calculations as > for GrpTRESMins (and similar), so when fair share priorities are in use, > slurm will reduce accumulated GrpTRESMins over time. This means that it > is impossible(*) to use GrpTRESMins limits and fairshare > priorities at the same time. > > > > This is a surprising observation! > > > > I discovered it quite a few years ago, when we wanted to use Slurm to > enforce cpu hour quota limits (instead of using Maui+Gold). Can't > remember anymore if I was surprised or just sad. :D > > We use a 14 days HalfLife in slurm.conf: > PriorityDecayHalfLife=14-0 > > Since our longest running jobs can run only 7 days, maybe our limits > never get reduced as you describe? > > > > The accumulated usage is reduced every 5 minutes (by default; see > PriorityCalcPeriod). The reduction is done by multiplying the > accumulated usage by a number slightly less than 1. The number is > chosen so that the accumulated usage is reduced to 50 % after > PriorityDecayHalfLife (given that you don't run anything more in > between, of course). With a halflife of 14 days and the default calc > period, that number is very close to 1 (0.9998281 if my calculations are > correct :). > > Note: I read all about these details on the schedmd web pages some years > ago. I cannot find them again (the parts about the multiplication with > a number smaller than 1 to get the half life), so I might be wrong on > some of the details. > > BTW, I've written a handy script for displaying user limits in a > readable format: > https://github.com/OleHolmNielsen/Slurm_tools/tree/master/showuserlimits > > > > Nice! > > -- > B/H
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
