[torqueusers] Re: qsub problem in 2.3.2?
tomr at intrinsity.com
Fri Aug 15 18:27:32 MDT 2008
This was apparently a side-effect of our upgrading from an older version (2.3.1)
and migrating existing jobs to the new version. When testing the same rpms
on a test network without queued/running jobs, we could not reproduce this
So if you have the luxury of being able to empty out all queues, it is probably
a good idea to do so.
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
More information about the torqueusers