[Mauiusers] USAGE Job priority factor?

Angel de Vicente angelv at iac.es
Thu Oct 27 04:13:35 MDT 2005


Åke Sandgren writes:
 > On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 14:37 +0100, Angel de Vicente wrote:
 > > Hi,
 > > 
 > > thanks for the suggestion. We already use fairshare, but from my understanding
 > > of fairshare I don't see how I can use it for what I want to accomplish.
 > > 
 > > At the moment I have a 40+ fairshare target for a group of users (group nhd)
 > > (those who paid part of the cluster), so it works fine for them.
 > > 
 > > But how could I say to Maui "if someone is already running something or he/she
 > > has run something during the last few days give his/her jobs less priority"?
 > > 
 > > For starters, I do not want to specify the fairshare target for each individual
 > > user, as users come and go, and that would mean changing the policies
 > > regularly. What I would like to say to Maui is: "just try to make the fairshare
 > > usage equal for all users, except the group nhd, which has a 40% target", and I
 > > don't see how to do this.
 > > 
 > > Also if I set user A and B a fairshare target of, say, 10, then once both of
 > > them have gotten a fairshare above 10, then Maui would not take this into
 > > consideration, right? If user A has used 60% and user B has used 15%, Maui would
 > > not give advantage to user B, which doesn't look fair... By rereading the
 > > documentation, maybe I'm wrong in this. Maybe this was true in the case of a
 > > fairshare target of 10+ but not if the target was set to 10, right?
 > It sounds to me as if you dont use negative priority...
 > We have
 > resulting in users (or accounts in our case) having used more then their
 > fairshare target getting a negative priority (at least the FS part is
 > the rest depends on the weights) and if both have target 10 and A has
 > used 65 and B 15 B's priority would be higher then A's but still
 > negative and C (who has used 1) will have a higher priority.
 > What i'm not sure about is how groups/user fairshare combinations
 > interact except for the different weights.

Thanks for this. I have tried setting 1 as the fairshare target of the DEFAULT
user, and it works more or less fine. I had to tweak the weight given to the
group fairshare to make sure that it was always more important than the user
fairshare, and now it works more ore less OK. The only problem is that it
doesn't seem very elegant to specify 1 as the user fairshare, as this was chosen
arbitrarily. Any other number would have done, as I'm just interested in the
inequalities between users, so I think being able to specify something like
"Equal" in the user fairshare would be clearer.

Angel de Vicente

PostDoc Software Support
Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias

More information about the mauiusers mailing list