[torqueusers] Does anyone use #shared?

David Beer dbeer at adaptivecomputing.com
Fri Apr 13 09:30:53 MDT 2012


On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:00 AM, <Gareth.Williams at csiro.au> wrote:

> I have no objection. ****
>
> ** **
>
> We are keen on using cpusets and allocating/dedicating cores.  We did run
> a custom setup for many years with a ‘overload’ queue which put jobs in a
> special shared cpuset and faked the number of cpus to make the scheduler
> work compatibly. The facility was not valued by the user-base. We’ve
> more-or-less abandoned that idea now that we’re using the cpuset
> integration in torque which would not easily support such a model – and
> don’t care much.****
>
> ** **
>
> In any case, we never used they #shared feature.****
>
> **
>

Gareth,

Thanks for your reply. It doesn't sound like being able to 'overload'
things is important to you, but I will point out that this would still be
possible by claiming that there are more cpus than actually exist on the
system. I think that there are some sites that do this (although I'm not
completely certain who).

The #shared feature isn't something that any scheduler I'm aware of can
schedule, which is just another reason I see to remove the code since it
would greatly simplify the code path. I'm going to wait a bit more to see
what other responses we get because this would mean removing it, but
judging by the lack of objections it seems that we may go ahead and remove
this from the trunk.

David


> **
>
> Gareth****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* David Beer [mailto:dbeer at adaptivecomputing.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 April 2012 7:35 AM
> *To:* Torque Users Mailing List
> *Subject:* [torqueusers] Does anyone use #shared?****
>
> ** **
>
> All,****
>
> ** **
>
> Does anyone out there used shared execution slots? This feature allows any
> number of jobs to be assigned to the same execution slot, as long as the
> job requests only a shared processor. I don't know of any customer that
> uses these, and I'd like to remove the code to support this from the post
> 4.0 TORQUE (trunk in subversion). This would simplify a number of routines
> and get rid of quite a bit of spaghetti code, so it'd be great if nobody
> uses it. Does anyone have objections to removing this 'feature'?
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> David Beer | Software Engineer****
>
> Adaptive Computing****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> torqueusers mailing list
> torqueusers at supercluster.org
> http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers
>
>


-- 
David Beer | Software Engineer
Adaptive Computing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.supercluster.org/pipermail/torqueusers/attachments/20120413/c2024c2c/attachment.html 


More information about the torqueusers mailing list