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

bugzilla-daemon at supercluster.org bugzilla-daemon at supercluster.org
Thu Oct 28 09:25:06 MDT 2010


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

Ken Nielson <knielson at adaptivecomputing.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |knielson at adaptivecomputing.
                   |                            |com

--- Comment #3 from Ken Nielson <knielson at adaptivecomputing.com> 2010-10-28 09:25:06 MDT ---

> 
> > PPN = processors per node (according to manual page), really virtual processors
> > as you can overcommit if you are not using cpusets.  I've seen plenty of
> > commercial software out there that uses them, so I don't think it can go away. 
> > The pvmem limits which you mention are vital to us.
> 
> Well, that's the problem, then manual page says processors per node, but that's
> not how Torque works (this is exactly the reason why I created this bug). They
> are processes per node. I'm not saying to get rid of ppn, but to get rid of the
> processes semantics, therefore ppn will be actually processors not processes.
> pvmem can actually stay, although I think pmem and pvmem can be easily
> superseded by mem and vmem.

I understand the frustration with ppn not really meaning processors per node.
However, the current behavior of ppn is widely used and expected. We need to
live with this. Changing this behavior will break too many people.

-- 
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