Diego Zuccato <diego.zucc...@unibo.it> writes: > IIUC Loris is looking for a method to do that automatically. > Since there is a "used memory" metric, a corresponding "wasted memory" > (or "wasted CPU") one with corresponding weights in priority > calculations could be useful.
Yes, an automated solution is indeed what I am after. A "naughty" list wouldn't really help, since there is quite a spectrum. I would also need at least a "naive" list, an "erratic" list, and probably a thankfully fairly short "recalcitrant" list. Cheers, Loris > Diego > > Il 11/10/2023 09:54, Williams, Gareth (IM&T, Black Mountain) ha scritto: >> Hi Loris, You could add them to a naughty list (please use a better >> term...) and apply a fixed commensurate priority penalty. That is >> simple (and can apply to a range of unpreferred behaviour) and >> provides a clear motivation to change. Could be done with QOS unless >> you already use that in a conflicting way. >> Gareth >> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* slurm-users <slurm-users-boun...@lists.schedmd.com> on >> behalf of Loris Bennett <loris.benn...@fu-berlin.de> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 11, 2023 5:26:38 PM >> *To:* Slurm Users Mailing List <slurm-users@lists.schedmd.com> >> *Subject:* [slurm-users] Fairshare: Penalising unused memory rather >> than used memory? >> Hi, >> We have an increasing number of users who are unable (or unwilling) >> to >> estimate their memory requirements accurately. We include memory in our >> calculation of fairshare usage and thus penalise everyone who requests >> large amounts of memory, whether it is needed or not. >> Therefore I would be interested in knowing whether one can take into >> account the *requested but unused memory* when calculating usage. Is >> this possible? >> Cheers, >> Loris >> -- Dr. Loris Bennett (Herr/Mr) >> ZEDAT, Freie Universität Berlin >> -- Dr. Loris Bennett (Herr/Mr) ZEDAT, Freie Universität Berlin
