Re: [HTCondor-devel] Priorities between accounting groups

[Igor Sfiligoi <sfiligoi@xxxxxxxx>]

But this does not really manage fair share between groups...
e.g. if for one day G1 uses all the slots because there are no jobs from G2,
on day two, when G2 gets back, G1 will still get 33% of all the available slots, right?

Also, what happens if I have
G1=.25, G2=.25, G3=.5
and there are only G1 and G3 jobs in the queue?
Will G3 get twice the "opportunistic" slots compared to G1? Or is there no such guarantee?

Thanks,
  Igor

On 01/14/2013 11:59 AM, Jon Thomas wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 09:06 -0800, Igor Sfiligoi wrote:
> > Dear HTCondor team.
> >
> > I am puzzled on how priorities between accounting groups work.
> > Some time ago I have asked around (don't remember who I talked to, sorry), I was told that if I set the dynamic quotas to >>1.0, then I effectively get priorities between them this way.
> > (e.g. G1=2.0&G2=4.0, users in G2 get 2/3 of the pool on a busy day, bust still can get all the resources if G1 is not there)
> >
> > Looking in the 7.8 manual, I see instead that "each of the subgroups will have their dynamic group quota scaled"!
> > http://research.cs.wisc.edu/htcondor/manual/v7.8/3_4User_Priorities.html#26789
> >
> > Is this a recent change?
> > Dan tells me there has been a lot of work in this area.
> >
> > Please let me know.
> > If the semantics has indeed changed, how can I get the desired semantics back?
> Looks like what you are after is G1=.33, G2=.67 and
> GROUP_ACCEPT_SURPLUS=true.
>
> > Thanks,
> >     Igor
> > _______________________________________________
> > HTCondor-devel mailing list
> > HTCondor-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/htcondor-devel