You should be able to assign node weights to accommodate your
prioritization wishes. I've summarized this setting in my Slurm Wiki page:
https://wiki.fysik.dtu.dk/niflheim/Slurm_configuration#node-weight
I hope this helps.
/Ole
On 9/5/19 5:48 PM, Douglas Duckworth wrote:
Hello
We added some
Hello Doug,
tp quote the slurm.conf page:
It would be preferable to allocate smaller memory nodes rather than
larger memory nodes if either will satisfy a job's requirements.
So I guess the idea is, that if a smaller node satisfies all
requirements, why 'waste' a bigger one for it? It makes sense
I believe this is so that small jobs will naturally go on older, slower nodes
first - leaving the bigger,better ones for jobs that actually need them.
Merlin
--
Merlin Hartley
IT Support Engineer
MRC Mitochondrial Biology Unit
University of Cambridge
Cambridge, CB2 0XY
United Kingdom
> On 5 Sep
The intention there is to pack jobs on the smallest node that can handle
the job.
This way jobs that only need 1 cpu don't take it from a 64-core node
unless it has to, leaving that one available for that 64-core job.
It really boils down to what you want to happen, which will vary with
eac
Hello
We added some newer Epyc nodes, with NVMe scratch, to our cluster and so want
jobs to run on these over others. So we added "Weight=100" to the older nodes
and left the new ones blank. So indeed, ceteris paribus, srun reveals that the
faster nodes will accept jobs over older ones.
We h
On Thursday, 25 July 2019 10:02:05 AM PDT Ryan Novosielski wrote:
> My understanding is that the topology plug-in will overrule this, and that
> may or may not be a problem depending on your environment.
Note you can set:
TopologyParam=TopoOptional
so that its only invoked if a job specifically
On Thursday, 25 July 2019 4:53:28 AM PDT David Baker wrote:
> Thank you for the replies. We're running an early version of Slurm 18.08 and
> it does appear that the node weights are being ignored re the bug.
I would recommend trying to get to 18.08.7, the current 18.08 release if you
can. Ther
My understanding is that the topology plug-in will overrule this, and that may
or may not be a problem depending on your environment. I had a ticket in to
SchedMD about this, because it looked like our nodes were getting allocated in
the exact reverse order. I suspected this was because our high
users-boun...@lists.schedmd.com] On Behalf Of
David Baker
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 8:30 AM
To: Slurm User Community List
Subject: Re: [slurm-users] Slurm node weights
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for these details. so far we have never implemented any Slurm fixes.
I suspect the node weights feature is quite imp
the system to be at risk. Or alternatively, do we need to
arrange downtime, etc?
Best regards,
David
From: slurm-users on behalf of Sarlo,
Jeffrey S
Sent: 25 July 2019 13:04
To: Slurm User Community List
Subject: Re: [slurm-users] Slurm node weights
Th
Community List
Subject: Re: [slurm-users] Slurm node weights
Hello,
Thank you for the replies. We're running an early version of Slurm 18.08 and it
does appear that the node weights are being ignored re the bug.
We're experimenting with Slurm 19*, however we don't expect to
anyone know if there any fix or
alternative strategy that might help us to achieve the same result?
Best regards,
David
From: slurm-users on behalf of Sarlo,
Jeffrey S
Sent: 25 July 2019 12:26
To: Slurm User Community List
Subject: Re: [slurm-users] Slu
Subject: Re: [slurm-users] Slurm node weights
Hello,
As an update I note that I have tried restarting the slurmctld, however that
doesn't help.
Best regards,
David
From: slurm-users on behalf of David
Baker
Sent: 25 July 2019 11:47:35
To: slurm-
Hi David,
What does:
scontrol show node orange01
scontrol show node orange02
show? Just to see if there's a default node weight hanging around, and if your
weight changes have been picked up.
Sean
--
Sean Crosby
Senior DevOpsHPC Engineer and HPC Team Lead | Research Platform Services
Research
Did you try assigning a weight to orange[02-03]? I've found with Slurm it's
better to be exact in your slurm.conf and don't relay on the defaults. This is
what I use on my cluster:
NodeName=r1n[01-32] weight=10 CoresPerSocket=16 Sockets=2 ThreadsPerCore=1
RealMemory=257000
NodeName=r1n[33-64
Hello,
As an update I note that I have tried restarting the slurmctld, however that
doesn't help.
Best regards,
David
From: slurm-users on behalf of David
Baker
Sent: 25 July 2019 11:47:35
To: slurm-users@lists.schedmd.com
Subject: [slurm-users]
Hello,
I'm experimenting with node weights and I'm very puzzled by what I see. Looking
at the documentation I gathered that jobs will be allocated to the nodes with
the lowest weight which satisfies their requirements. I have 3 nodes in a
partition and I have defined the nodes like so..
Node
17 matches
Mail list logo
