Hi, Am 24.04.2013 um 11:49 schrieb Tina Friedrich:
> I have a bit of a problem with our job submission. > > We have a setup with four different 'priority' queues - very low, low, > medium, and high - with subordination. The setup actually works quite well > for our usage pattern - with the highest priority queue being reserved for > automatic data reduction procedures (which are supposed to run whenever > triggered). > > Of late, we have noticed that we do quite often see jobs in the highest > priority queue suspend jobs running in the medium priority queue, although > there are nodes that do not have any medium priority jobs on them. It's not a > big problem, but it is annoying. So, I'm after ideas as to how to make the > number of jobs running in the medium priority queue a factor in the > scheduling decision. > > One of the problems is (I suspect) that there are always jobs running in the > very low priority queue - i.e. there is always load on the nodes. I suppose > that might skew the scheduling decision a bit (as it makes load average > misleading). From our point of view, we'd like the scheduler to basically > disregard the load average and focus on how many jobs there are running on > this host already when making a scheduling decision. > > I have tried a load sensor - basically counting the number of jobs in the > queue on a machine The load in the "medium" queue is counted only and "queue_sort_order load" set? In principle it should work. > - but that didn't seem to make a difference; which might be due to the > weighting, I suppose. For serial and parallel SMP jobs there is: http://wiki.gridengine.info/wiki/index.php/StephansBlog as an option. Maybe instead of using "slots" a custom complex is necessary which is called "medium" and all jobs of this type have to request it. This is similar to your setup with the load sensor. There of course no way to have different sorting algorithms for different queues (i.e. different load entries). You can give a different seq_no to the nodes in different queues, but his doesn't take the load in account (only for the ones with the same seq_no). And with the "medium" load sensor or complex: I assume you would like to have a different behavior for the medium jobs: fill the nodes first vs. for the priority jobs: use a free node. == A completely different approach: using a seq_no fill the cluster with medium jobs from the one side (ascending entries for each exechost), and for priority jobs from the other side (descending entries for each exechost). -- Reuti > Anyone got any bright ideas? > > Tina > > -- > Tina Friedrich, Computer Systems Administrator, Diamond Light Source Ltd > Diamond House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus - 01235 77 8442 > > -- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or > privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If > you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the > addressee please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, > copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the > e-mail. > Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not > necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd. Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot > guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses and we > cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of > software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message. > Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and > Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and > Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom > > > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@gridengine.org > https://gridengine.org/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@gridengine.org https://gridengine.org/mailman/listinfo/users
