[torquedev] [Bug 93] Resource management semantics of Torque need to be well defined

bugzilla-daemon at supercluster.org bugzilla-daemon at supercluster.org
Mon Dec 6 12:41:50 MST 2010


http://www.clusterresources.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93

--- Comment #14 from Ken Nielson <knielson at adaptivecomputing.com> 2010-12-06 12:41:50 MST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> 
> > Processes per node is often how it is explained,
> ...
> > The fact of the matter is that ppn hasn't been clearly defined over time, and
> > what it has become in practice is probably best described as processes per
> > node.
> 
> Describing it as "processes per node" is very misleading and completely
> inaccurate.  Take for example a multi-threaded program.  I routinely run
> multi-threaded code on our cluster.  We have 32 cores per node, and if I run a
> _single process_ that uses 32 threads, I request ppn=32.  If that meant
> _processes_ I would request ppn=1 because, after all, my mult-threaded program
> is still a single process. It is, however, using multiple-cores.
> 
> virtual processor per node is the correct definition of ppn - the number of
> virtual processors will typically be set to the total number of cores on a
> node. redefining it as processes per node will lead to problems.

Glen,

I double checked the documentation online and I did use the phrase virtual
processor. I tried to be careful not to use the word process or processes.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.clusterresources.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.


More information about the torquedev mailing list