Hi,
I'm not sure what queue time limit of 10 hours is. If you can't have jobs
waiting for more than 10 hours, than it seems to be very small for 8 hours
jobs.
Generally, a few options:
a. The --dependency option (either afterok or singleton)
b. The --array option of sbatch with limit of 1 job at a time (instead of
the for loop): sbatch --array=1-20%1
c. At the end of the script of each job, call the sbatch line of the next
job (this is probably the only option if indeed I understood the queue time
limit correctly).
And indeed, srun should probably be reserved for strictly interactive jobs.
Regards,
Yair.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:21 AM Nigella Sanders <nigella.sand...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I guess this is a simple matter but I still find it confusing.
>
> I have to run 20 jobs on our supercomputer.
> Each job takes about 8 hours and every one need the previous one to be
> completed.
> The queue time limit for jobs is 10 hours.
>
> So my first approach is serially launching them in a loop using srun:
>
>
> *#!/bin/bash*
> *for i in {1..20};do*
>
> * srun --time 08:10:00 [options]*
>
> *done*
>
> However SLURM literature keeps saying that 'srun' should be only used for
> short command line tests. So that some sysadmins would consider this a bad
> practice (see this
> <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43767866/slurm-srun-vs-sbatch-and-their-parameters>
> ).
>
> My second approach switched to sbatch:
>
> * #!/bin/bash *
> *for i in {1..20};do*
> * sbatch --time 08:10:00 [options]*
>
> * [polling to queue to see if job is done]*
> *done*
>
> But since sbatch returns the prompt I had to add code to check for job
> termination. Polling make use of sleep command and it is prone to race
> conditions so it doesn't like to sysadmins either.
>
> I guess there must be a --wait option in some recent versions of SLURM (see
> this <https://bugs.schedmd.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1685>). Not yet available
> in our system though.
>
> Is there any prefererable/canonical/friendly way to do this?
> Any thoughts would be really appreciated,
>
> Regards,
> Nigella.
>
>
>
