[torquedev] nodes, procs, tpn and ncpus

Martin Siegert siegert at sfu.ca
Fri Jun 11 13:45:33 MDT 2010


On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 01:24:15PM -0600, Ken Nielson wrote:
> On 06/11/2010 12:19 PM, "Mgr. Šimon Tóth" wrote:
> > On 11.6.2010 18:41, Martin Siegert wrote:
> >    
> >>
> >> It all depends on whether we want to break the meaning of nodes=N being
> >> totally equivalent to nodes=N:ppn=1.
> >> 1) if we stick to the meaning of nodes=N just being a shorthand for
> >>     nodes=N:ppn=1 then -l nodes=4+procs=4 makes just as much sense as
> >>     nodes=4:ppn=2+procs=6, i.e., there is no problem.
> >> 2) if we change the meaning of nodes=N to become "give me exclusive
> >>     access to N nodes" then we need to define what -l nodes=N+procs=M
> >>     means.
> >>
> >> I actually vote for (1). E.g., what is the default if neither nodes nor
> >> procs is specified? Currently that is nodes=1:ppn=1, i.e., the default
> >> for nodes is 1 and the default for ppn is one. That logical extension is
> >> that if only nodes is specified then the default value for ppn should be
> >> used. I.e., nodes=N means nodes=N:ppn=1.
> >> But that leaves us with the problem of how to specify exclusive access
> >> to a node. What about a keyword ALL as in nodes=4:ppn=ALL ? It is a
> >> logical extension of the current syntax and is easy to understand.
> >> And then things like -l nodes=1:ppn=ALL+procs=42 make total sense
> >> (at least to me).
> >>      
> > That's not good enough. How do you tell Torque that you want at least a
> > 4 CPU node, but when you get it, then you want all the CPUs?
> >
> >    
> >    
> How about just add #exclusive or other appropriate keyword.

That would work for me.

- Martin


More information about the torquedev mailing list