fairshare=parent sets the user association to effectively compete at the
account level, so this is behaving as intended. It's effectively
ignoring the users' usage when competing with others inside the same
account. That is not want you want. Give them all the same numeric
value, not parent.
Fair Tree (the default) handles a single account just fine, but you do
not want fairshare=parent there either.
Ryan
On 8/10/24 08:05, Drucker, Daniel via slurm-users wrote:
And now, a few hours later - with no changes made - everyone has the
same fairshare?
$ sshare -l -a
Account User RawShares NormShares RawUsage
NormUsage EffectvUsage FairShare GrpTRESMins
TRESRunMins
-------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
----------- ------------- ---------- ------------------------------
------------------------------
root 0.000000 63235972
0.000000 1.000000
cpu=188835,mem=1546941371,ene+
root root 1 0.008264 0
0.000000 0.000000 1.000000
cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
mic 120 0.991736 63235972
1.000000 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=188835,mem=1546941371,ene+
mic aamedina parent 0.991736 2351906
0.037193 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
mic aaruldass parent 0.991736 0
0.000000 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
mic acataldo parent 0.991736 14637614
0.231476 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=188031,mem=1540350361,ene+
mic achowdhury parent 0.991736 0
0.000000 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
mic ajajoo parent 0.991736 2053441
0.032473 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
mic ajanes parent 0.991736 0
0.000000 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
mic amandacao parent 0.991736 200
0.000003 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
mic aromer parent 0.991736 0
0.000000 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
mic aweerasek+ parent 0.991736 1048
0.000017 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
mic batwood parent 0.991736 0
0.000000 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
mic bleng parent 0.991736 3
0.000000 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
mic cdemirlek parent 0.991736 6110
0.000097 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
mic chun parent 0.991736 0
0.000000 1.000000 0.497120
cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
I am so confused.
On Aug 10, 2024, at 8:11 AM, Drucker, Daniel
<ddruc...@mclean.harvard.edu> wrote:
Hmm, no. That solved the problem of everyone having the same
FairShare, but even after restarting slurmd and doing reconfigure, if
I submit a job as someone with a huge usage and someone with zero
usage, they both end up with the same Priority.
On Aug 10, 2024, at 8:05 AM, Daniel M. Drucker
<ddruc...@mclean.harvard.edu> wrote:
I just set
PriorityFlags=NO_FAIR_TREE
and this seems to have solved the problem!
On Aug 10, 2024, at 7:45 AM, Drucker, Daniel
<ddruc...@mclean.harvard.edu> wrote:
According to https://docs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/kb/fairshare/ and
https://slurm.schedmd.com/SUG14/fair_tree.pdf :
"The Fairshare score is calculated using the following formula.f =
2^(-EffectvUsage/NormShares)"
This is clearly not happening on my system:
Account User RawShares NormShares RawUsage NormUsage
EffectvUsage FairShare LevelFS GrpTRESMins TRESRunMins
-------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
----------- ------------- ---------- ----------
------------------------------ ------------------------------
...
mic acataldo parent 0.991736 13066208 0.210193
0.210193 0.983871 cpu=169648,mem=1389757781,ene+
mic achowdhury parent 0.991736 0 0.000000
0.000000 0.983871 cpu=0,mem=0,energy=0,node=0,b+
...
Every user has 0.991736 NormShares.
Acataldo has EffectvUsage = 0.210193
Achowdhury has EffectvUsage = 0
But both users have the same FairShare. The correct values
according to the above formula would be 0.863 and 1.0 respectively.
So what's going on?
On Aug 10, 2024, at 7:36 AM, Daniel M. Drucker
<ddruc...@mclean.harvard.edu> wrote:
Here is what is confusing me I guess. Look at the below. You can
see that some people have no usage and some people have a lot of
usage. But their FairShare value is all identical.
https://lists.schedmd.com/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/slurm-users@lists.schedmd.com/thread/I53OEJSNBT2BMXYVFEFHQQKKAHIUYA53/
seems to say that fairshare=parent should work just fine, but what
I am seeing is that it is NOT altering people's FairShare?
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom
it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error
and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Mass
General Brigham Compliance HelpLine at
https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted). If you do not
wish to continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify
the sender of this message immediately. Continuing to send or respond
to e-mail after receiving this message means you understand and accept
this risk and wish to continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail.
--
slurm-users mailing list -- slurm-users@lists.schedmd.com
To unsubscribe send an email to slurm-users-le...@lists.schedmd.com
