- "Craig Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
/* Just catching up on list email on a plane */
> First all I agree that it is always a YMMV case. We good about that
> here (the list).
Indeed.
> My point was, that in every instance that I have seen, multi-day
> queue limits are not the norm.
Bogdan Costescu wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Craig Tierney wrote:
Our queue limits are 8 hours.
...
Did that sysadmin who set 24 hour time limits ever analyze the amount
of lost computational time because of larger time limits?
While I agree with the idea and reasons of short job runtime limit
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:53:36PM +0100, Bogdan Costescu wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Craig Tierney wrote:
>
> >Our queue limits are 8 hours.
> >...
> >Did that sysadmin who set 24 hour time limits ever analyze the amount
> >of lost computational time because of larger time limits?
>
> While I
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Craig Tierney wrote:
Our queue limits are 8 hours.
...
Did that sysadmin who set 24 hour time limits ever analyze the amount
of lost computational time because of larger time limits?
While I agree with the idea and reasons of short job runtime limits, I
disagree with your
Craig Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Allowing users to run for days or weeks as SOP is begging for failure.
Define failure. Our time limit is typically somewhere around 5 or 6
days. Many codes don't have checkpointing, and it's often simply not
possible to add it because you don't have acc
