Re: [Condor-devel] RFC: partitionable slots as "per-machine concurrency limits"

[Erik Erlandson <eje@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 15:46 -0700, Erik Erlandson wrote:

> Given that we are considering some extensions to the concurrency limit
> features, it made me wonder if it would be a net win to dispense with
> partitionable/dynamic slots in favor of mem/disk pooling via some kind
> of per-machine concurrency limit accounting mechanism.


I've gotten one comment that concurrency limits per se aren't the right
place, as those are globally scoped across all pool nodes.

A better question is: "what are the possible benefits versus drawbacks
of extracting mem/disk accounting out of slots and into some other kind
of per-node accounting mechanism"

I don't see how you can avoid having claim logic know about these
resources.  But it might conceivably be localized there.  

The accountant currently handles CL - it could conceivably be extended
to allow "scoped" CL, where one kind of scope could be machine names.

Would potential simplifications be helpful enough to justify the implied
code and feature churn?