Yes it was later than that. If you are 23.02 you are good. We've been
running with storing job_scripts on for years at this point and that
part of the database only uses up 8.4G. Our entire database takes up
29G on disk. So its about 1/3 of the database. We also have database
compression which helps with the on disk size. Raw uncompressed our
database is about 90G. We keep 6 months of data in our active database.
-Paul Edmon-
On 9/28/2023 1:57 PM, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
Sorry for the duplicate e-mail in a short time: do you know (or
anyone) when the hashing was added? Was planning to enable this on
21.08, but we then had to delay our upgrade to it. I’m assuming later
than that, as I believe that’s when the feature was added.
On Sep 28, 2023, at 13:55, Ryan Novosielski <novos...@rutgers.edu> wrote:
Thank you; we’ll put in a feature request for improvements in that
area, and also thanks for the warning? I thought of that in passing,
but the real world experience is really useful. I could easily see
wanting that stuff to be retained less often than the main records,
which is what I’d ask for.
I assume that archiving, in general, would also remove this stuff,
since old jobs themselves will be removed?
--
#BlackLivesMatter
____
|| \\UTGERS, |---------------------------*O*---------------------------
||_// the State | Ryan Novosielski - novos...@rutgers.edu
|| \\ University | Sr. Technologist - 973/972.0922 (2x0922) ~*~
RBHS Campus
|| \\ of NJ | Office of Advanced Research Computing - MSB
A555B, Newark
`'
On Sep 28, 2023, at 13:48, Paul Edmon <ped...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
Slurm should take care of it when you add it.
So far as horror stories, under previous versions our database size
ballooned to be so massive that it actually prevented us from
upgrading and we had to drop the columns containing the job_script
and job_env. This was back before slurm started hashing the scripts
so that it would only store one copy of duplicate scripts. After
this point we found that the job_script database stayed at a fairly
reasonable size as most users use functionally the same script each
time. However the job_env continued to grow like crazy as there are
variables in our environment that change fairly consistently
depending on where the user is. Thus job_envs ended up being too
massive to keep around and so we had to drop them. Frankly we never
really used them for debugging. The job_scripts though are super
useful and not that much overhead.
In summary my recommendation is to only store job_scripts. job_envs
add too much storage for little gain, unless your job_envs are
basically the same for each user in each location.
Also it should be noted that there is no way to prune out
job_scripts or job_envs right now. So the only way to get rid of
them if they get large is to 0 out the column in the table. You can
ask SchedMD for the mysql command to do this as we had to do it here
to our job_envs.
-Paul Edmon-
On 9/28/2023 1:40 PM, Davide DelVento wrote:
In my current slurm installation, (recently upgraded to slurm
v23.02.3), I only have
AccountingStoreFlags=job_comment
I now intend to add both
AccountingStoreFlags=job_script
AccountingStoreFlags=job_env
leaving the default 4MB value for max_script_size
Do I need to do anything on the DB myself, or will slurm take care
of the additional tables if needed?
Any comments/suggestions/gotcha/pitfalls/horror_stories to share? I
know about the additional diskspace and potentially load needed,
and with our resources and typical workload I should be okay with that.
Thanks!
