Given that the usual way to kill a job that's running is to use scancel, I
would tend to agree that killing by shortening the walltime to below the
already used time is likely to be an error, and deserves a warning.
My opinion is no, at least not forced.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 1:40 PM Amjad Syed wrote:
> Agreed the point of greater responsibility but even rm -r ( without
> f) gives a warning. In this case should slurm have that option (
> forced) especially if it can immediately kill a running
Agreed the point of greater responsibility but even rm -r ( without
f) gives a warning. In this case should slurm have that option (
forced) especially if it can immediately kill a running job?
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023, 18:16 Jason Simms, wrote:
> An unfortunate example of the “with
An unfortunate example of the “with great power comes great responsibility”
maxim. Linux will gleefully let you rm -fr your entire system, drop
production databases, etc., provided you have the right privileges. Ask me
how I know…
Still, I get the point. Would it be possible to somehow ask for
con
Yes, the initial End Time was 7-00:00:00 but it allowed the typo (16:00:00)
which caused the jobs to be killed without warning
Amjad
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 5:27 PM Bernstein, Noam CIV USN NRL (6393)
Washington DC (USA) wrote:
> Is the issue that the error in the time made it shorter than the ti
Is the issue that the error in the time made it shorter than the time the job
had already run, so it killed it immediately?
On Jul 6, 2023, at 12:04 PM, Jason Simms
mailto:jsim...@swarthmore.edu>> wrote:
No, not a bug, I would say. When the time limit is reached, that's it, job
dies. I wouldn'
Slurm User Group 2023 (SLUG) standard pricing is now available through
August 4th. Be sure to get your tickets before prices jump!
This year's SLUG event will take place September 12-13 at Brigham
Young University in Provo, Utah. A welcome reception is set for the
evening of Monday, September 11th
No, not a bug, I would say. When the time limit is reached, that's it, job
dies. I wouldn't be aware of a way to manage that. Once the time limit is
reached, it wouldn't be a hard limit if you then had to notify the user and
then... what? How long would you give them to extend the time? Wouldn't be
Hello
We were trying to increase the time limit of a slurm running job
scontrol update job= TimeLimit=16-00:00:00
But we accidentally got it to 16 hours
scontrol update job= TimeLimit=16:00:00
This actually timeout and killed the running job and did not give any
notification
Is this a bug, sh
Thanks a lot. That did the trick.
Matthias
Am 05.07.23 um 18:37 schrieb Xand Meaden:
You should check whether the relevant group's members can be seen using
command `getent group `. If not, you probably need to
add/change the "winbind expand groups" option in smb.conf.
Xand
On 05/07/2023 17
Hello Purvesh,
I'm not an expert in this, but I expect a common question would be, why are
you wanting to do this? More information would be helpful. On the surface,
it seems like you could just allocate two full nodes to each partition. You
must have a reason why that is unacceptable, however.
M
Hi Purvesh,
Purvesh Parmar writes:
> Hi,
>
> Do I need separate slurmctld and slurmd to run for this? I am struggling for
> this. Any pointers.
>
> --
> Purvesh
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 12:15, Purvesh Parmar wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have slurm 20.11 in a cluster of 4 nodes, with each node havi
Hi,
Do I need separate slurmctld and slurmd to run for this? I am struggling
for this. Any pointers.
--
Purvesh
On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 12:15, Purvesh Parmar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have slurm 20.11 in a cluster of 4 nodes, with each node having 16 cpus.
> I want to create two partitions (ppart and
13 matches
Mail list logo
