[torqueusers] Curious question

Fernando Campos fernando.campos at uam.es
Wed Apr 14 06:51:34 MDT 2010


Thank you very much, Gustavo!

I forgot about that file. I just check it and I think I read it some time
ago... Anyway, there won't be any parallel job running on my cluster, so "1
job 1 core" policy will be easier.

But I'm seeing that the jobs are sent to the nodes in the order they are
listed on the nodes file. Maybe it's version dependent.

Thanks a lot for your answer and sorry for my late reply.

Fernando.


On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 19:55, Gus Correa <gus at ldeo.columbia.edu> wrote:

> Hi Fernando
>
>
> Fernando Campos wrote:
>
>> Hi all!!
>>
>> I'm running a TORQUE cluster with "pbs_sched" scheduler. Which is the
>> policy for node allocation??
>>
>
> As far as I know, the standard pbs_sched job policy just first in first out
> (FIFO).
>
>
>  Can you define it anywhere on Torque??
>>
>
> There are  a few things that can be done in your Torque server
> on the ${TORQUE}/sched_priv/sched_config file.
> I found it useful to reduce the job starvation limit
> (default 24h, I think), to prevent large parallel jobs to
> be bypassed forever by serial jobs and small parallel ones.
>
> For more job control you need to install the Maui scheduler,
> and use it instead of pbs_sched.
>
>
>  Is this case depending on the nodes order in "nodes" file? Should I then
>> put the better performance nodes at the beggining?
>>
>>
> I think Torque picks the nodes in the reverse order that you list them
> in the nodes file.
> Hence, if you want the better performance nodes to be used first,
> put them on the bottom of the nodes file.
>
> I hope this helps.
> Gus Correa
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gustavo Correa
> Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory - Columbia University
> Palisades, NY, 10964-8000 - USA
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  Thanks!
>>
>> Fer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 16:54, Charles Johnson <
>> charles.johnson at accre.vanderbilt.edu <mailto:
>> charles.johnson at accre.vanderbilt.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>    On Mar 30, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Ken Nielson wrote:
>>
>>     > Glen Beane wrote:
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Glen Beane
>>    <glen.beane at gmail.com <mailto:glen.beane at gmail.com>
>>    <mailto:glen.beane at gmail.com <mailto:glen.beane at gmail.com>
>>
>>     >> >> wrote:
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>    On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Charles Johnson
>>     >>    <charles.johnson at accre.vanderbilt.edu
>>    <mailto:charles.johnson at accre.vanderbilt.edu>
>>     >>    <mailto:charles.johnson at accre.vanderbilt.edu
>>    <mailto:charles.johnson at accre.vanderbilt.edu>>> wrote:
>>     >>
>>     >>        About the nodes file ... I have always been under the
>>     >>        impression that
>>     >>        the nodes file gives an ordering to nodes selected for jobs,
>>     >> i.e.,
>>     >>        nodes at the top of the list are considered before nodes at
>>     >> the
>>     >>        bottom. We are currently in a down time for refreshing
>>     >>        hardware, and
>>     >>        the whole cluster is quiescent. As a test of hardware we
>>     >>        submitted a
>>     >>        single job suitable for any one of several hundred nodes at
>>     >>        the top of
>>     >>        the nodes file. The job ran on a node roughly halfway
>>    down the
>>     >>        nodes
>>     >>        file. Again, there were no other jobs on the cluster.
>>     >>
>>     >>        I am curious as to why? Any ideas?
>>     >>
>>     >>        We are using torque 2.4.5 and moab 5.3.6
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>    This is really a Moab question since Moab selects the node that
>>     >>    the job will run on, it has nothing to do with the order of the
>>     >>    nodes in the TORQUE node file. I think the default for Moab
>> might
>>     >>    be "last fit", so as it scans the available nodes it will select
>>     >>    the last one it finds that satisfies the requirements for the
>>     >>    job.  There is a "first fit" and "best fit" option if I remember
>>     >>    correctly.
>>     >>
>>     >>    With the fifo scheduler, then yes, I think the job would run on
>>     >>    the first available node in the node list.
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> actually, I was thinking of LASTAVAILABLE, not "last fit", so the
>>     >> definition would be different than what I stated.  This is the
>>     >> correct definition: "This algorithm is a best fit in time algorithm
>>     >> that minimizes the impact of reservation based node-time
>>     >> fragmentation."  I think this might be the default, but I don't
>>     >> remember for sure.
>>     >>
>>
>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     >>
>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> torqueusers mailing list
>>     >> torqueusers at supercluster.org <mailto:torqueusers at supercluster.org>
>>
>>     >> http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers
>>     >>
>>     > If you were to run TORQUE without a scheduler and started the job
>>     > manually TORQUE will choose the last node in the nodes file to
>>    run on.
>>     >
>>     > Ken Nielson
>>     > Adaptive Computing
>>
>>
>>    Thanks to all who replied. Clarity reigns. :)
>>
>>    ~Cheers--
>>
>>    Charles
>>    --
>>    Charles Johnson
>>    Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education
>>    Office: 615-343-2776
>>    Cell: 615-478-5743
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    torqueusers mailing list
>>    torqueusers at supercluster.org <mailto:torqueusers at supercluster.org>
>>
>>    http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Fernando Campos Del Pozo
>> Departamento de Física Teórica
>> Facultad de Ciencias / Módulo 15 (C-XI) / Despacho 512
>> Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
>> Tlf.: +34-914974893
>> e-mail: fernando.campos at uam.es <mailto:fernando.campos at uam.es>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> torqueusers mailing list
>> torqueusers at supercluster.org
>> http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers
>>
>
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Campos Del Pozo
Departamento de Física Teórica
Facultad de Ciencias / Módulo 15 (C-XI) / Despacho 512
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Tlf.: +34-914974893
e-mail: fernando.campos at uam.es
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.supercluster.org/pipermail/torqueusers/attachments/20100414/134faf2a/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the torqueusers mailing list