We've attempted setting JobAcctGatherFrequency=task=0 and there is no change.
We have settings:
ProctrackType=proctrack/cgroup
TaskPlugin=task/cgroup,task/affinity
JobAcctGatherType=jobacct_gather/cgroup
Odd ... wonder why we don't see it help.
Here is how we verify:
===
#!/bin/bash
#SBATCH --
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:44:03PM +0100, Bj?rn-Helge Mevik wrote:
> Paddy Doyle writes:
>
> > Looking back through the mailing list, it seems that from 2015 onwards the
> > recommendation from Danny was to use 'jobacct_gather/linux' instead of
> > 'jobacct_gather/cgroup'. I didn't pick up on th
Paddy Doyle writes:
> Looking back through the mailing list, it seems that from 2015 onwards the
> recommendation from Danny was to use 'jobacct_gather/linux' instead of
> 'jobacct_gather/cgroup'. I didn't pick up on that properly, so we kept with
> the cgroup version.
>
> Is anyone else still us
" Looking back through the mailing list, it seems that from 2015 onwards the
recommendation from Danny was to use 'jobacct_gather/linux' instead of
'jobacct_gather/cgroup'. I didn't pick up on that properly, so we kept with
the cgroup version."
Ahh, hmm I need to dig up that recommenda
A small addition: I forgot to mention our JobAcct params:
JobAcctGatherFrequency=task=30
JobAcctGatherType=jobacct_gather/cgroup
I've done a small bit of playing around on a test cluster. Changing to
'JobAcctGatherFrequency=0' (i.e. only gather at job end) seems to then give
correct values for th
Actually we double checked and are seeing it in normal jobs too.
—
Christopher Coffey
High-Performance Computing
Northern Arizona University
928-523-1167
On 1/4/19, 9:24 AM, "slurm-users on behalf of Paddy Doyle"
wrote:
Hi Chris,
We're seeing it on 18.08.3, so I was hoping that
Hi Chris,
We're seeing it on 18.08.3, so I was hoping that it was fixed in 18.08.4
(recently upgraded from 17.02 to 18.08.3). Note that we're seeing it in
regular jobs (haven't tested job arrays).
I think it's cgroups-related; there's a similar bug here:
https://bugs.schedmd.com/show_bug.cgi?id=
I'm surprised no one else is seeing this issue? I wonder if you have 18.08 you
can take a moment and run jobeff on a job in one of your users job arrays. I'm
guessing jobeff will show the same issue as we are seeing. The issue is that
usercpu is incorrect, and off by many orders of magnitude.
B
So this issue is occurring only with job arrays.
—
Christopher Coffey
High-Performance Computing
Northern Arizona University
928-523-1167
On 12/21/18, 12:15 PM, "slurm-users on behalf of Chance Bryce Carl Nelson"
wrote:
Hi folks,
calling sacct with the usercpu flag enable
lson
Sent: Saturday, 22 December 2018 08:11
To: slurm-users@lists.schedmd.com
Subject: [slurm-users] [Slurm 18.08.4] sacct/seff Inaccurate usercpu on Job
Arrays
Hi folks,
calling sacct with the usercpu flag enabled seems to provide cpu times far
above expected values for job array indices. Th
Hi folks,
calling sacct with the usercpu flag enabled seems to provide cpu times far
above expected values for job array indices. This is also reported by seff.
For example, executing the following job script:
#!/bin/bash
#SBATCH --job-name
11 matches
Mail list logo
