------- Original Message ------- Le mercredi 4 octobre 2023 à 17:39, Kratz, Zach <zkr...@clarku.edu> a écrit :
> Thank you for your response, > > Just to clarify, > We do specify the node weight in the node setting lines, I was just wondering > if there was a way to be more detailed in our weight assignments. > > Here is our configuration right now: > > … > > Notice the weights are set under compute nodes, and under interactive > sessions is where it selects from Nodes=node[1-24] to choose what node will > complete the interactive job. I don't see anything wrong with your configuration and to be honest I can't figure out what would prevent Weight to operate as expected in this case. I was a bit dubious about the Priority on the partition because it is not documented (as far as I looked for) but it seems it sets both PriorityJobFactor and PriorityTier[2] so it shouldn't bother though. Maybe you could try the manpage proposal for the Weight option[1]? > If you absolutely want to minimize the number of higher weight nodes > allocated to a job (at a cost of higher scheduling overhead), give each node > a distinct Weight value and they will be added to the pool of nodes being > considered for scheduling individually. [1] https://github.com/SchedMD/slurm/blob/10b6d5122b77eae417546d5263757d0ed1b2fd31/src/common/read_config.c#L1667 [2] https://slurm.schedmd.com/slurm.conf.html#OPT_Weight -- Rémi Palancher Rackslab: Open Source Solutions for HPC Operations https://rackslab.io
