[torqueusers] Re: qsub problem in 2.3.2?

[Matthew Britt]

We're not running 2.3.2 in production yet, but my quick test of 2.3.2  
(and your example) didn't show any problems (I received the requested  
memory allocation).

  - matt

On Aug 9, 2008, at 8:36 PM, Tom Rudwick wrote:

>
> Hello? (tap tap)
> I guess nobody is running 2.3.x
> Probably a wise decision.
>
> Tom
>
>
> Tom Rudwick wrote:
>> Is it just us, or did this break in 2.3.2?
>> qsub -l mem=5gb test
>> When we do this with 2.3.1, we get a job with 5gb memory allocation.
>> When we do this with 2.3.2, we get a job with the server default  
>> memory allocation.
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> torqueusers mailing list
> torqueusers at supercluster.org
> http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers
>
>