RE: [Condor-users] about priorities

["Matt Hope" <Matt.Hope@xxxxxxxx>]

off the top of my head that should work (though I can't remember if this will trigger preemption with only one user - easiest way is to try it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: condor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:condor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Robert.Nordlund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 05 August 2004 15:41
> To: Condor-Users Mail List
> Subject: RE: [Condor-users] about priorities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any suggestions for the following condor_config entries on the execute
> machines?
> 
> WANT_SUSPEND = FALSE
> WANT_VACATE = FALSE
> START = TRUE
> SUSPEND = FALSE
> CONTINUE          = $(UWCS_CONTINUE)
> PREEMPT = FALSE
> KILL              = $(UWCS_KILL)
> PERIODIC_CHECKPOINT     = $(UWCS_PERIODIC_CHECKPOINT)
> PREEMPTION_REQUIREMENTS = $(UWCS_PREEMPTION_REQUIREMENTS)
> PREEMPTION_RANK         = $(UWCS_PREEMPTION_RANK)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob Nordlund
> 
> 
> 
> |---------+-------------------------------->
> |         |           "Matt Hope"          |
> |         |           <Matt.Hope@xxxxxxxx> |
> |         |           Sent by:             |
> |         |           condor-users-bounces@|
> |         |           cs.wisc.edu          |
> |         |                                |
> |         |                                |
> |         |           08/05/2004 10:36 AM  |
> |         |           Please respond to    |
> |         |           Condor-Users Mail    |
> |         |           List                 |
> |         |                                |
> |---------+-------------------------------->
>   
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------|
>   |                                                           
>                                                    |
>   |       To:       "Condor-Users Mail List" 
> <condor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>                                          |
>   |       cc:                                                 
>                                                    |
>   |       Subject:  RE: [Condor-users] about priorities       
>                                                    |
>   
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------|
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the cluster/proc option should work fine for you then...
> 
> just alter the rank expression on the execute machines and, 
> assuming all
> other settings are at their defaults, it should all just work...
> 
> try it with cpusoak test jobs, send a vacate to one of the 
> machines and see
> what happens.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: condor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:condor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> > Robert.Nordlund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: 05 August 2004 15:25
> > To: Condor-Users Mail List
> > Subject: RE: [Condor-users] about priorities
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Matt,
> >
> > Thanks for the quick reply.  I'll try to clarify my
> > situation.  Jobs are
> > submitted with a five-second delay.  In the case where the
> > first ten jobs
> > are running and utilizing all available pool resources and
> > then a hardware
> > failure causes the available pool resources to decrease and
> > thereby cause a
> > job failure, is there a way to remove an active
> > lower-priority job(s) to
> > make room for the higher priority job that failed?  This is a
> > dedicated
> > pool with only one scheduler.  I control the horizontal and
> > the vertical.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bob Nordlund
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > |---------+-------------------------------->
> > |         |           "Matt Hope"          |
> > |         |           <Matt.Hope@xxxxxxxx> |
> > |         |           Sent by:             |
> > |         |           condor-users-bounces@|
> > |         |           cs.wisc.edu          |
> > |         |                                |
> > |         |                                |
> > |         |           08/05/2004 10:12 AM  |
> > |         |           Please respond to    |
> > |         |           Condor-Users Mail    |
> > |         |           List                 |
> > |         |                                |
> > |---------+-------------------------------->
> >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------------------------------------------|
> >   |
> >                                                    |
> >   |       To:       "Condor-Users Mail List"
> > <condor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>                                  
>         |
> >   |       cc:
> >                                                    |
> >   |       Subject:  RE: [Condor-users] about priorities
> >                                                    |
> >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------------------------------------------|
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > assumption - jobs are submitted in time order with sufficient
> > gap between
> > them to account for time differences between submit machines...
> >
> > place
> > RANK=-TARGET.QDate
> > on all execute machines.
> >
> > assumption - the jobs are all submitted from one cluster..
> > place
> > RANK=-TARGET.ProcId
> > on all execute machines.
> > If you wish to have multiple sets of these ordered jobs at
> > once make sure
> > you either include the cluster id as so (works for jobs up to
> > 100000000
> > processes big!)
> > RANK= (-TARGET.ClusterId * 100000000) - TARGET.ProcId
> >
> >
> > assumption you can control the submission process such that
> > every job is
> > given a unique monotonic increasing/decreasing number (easy
> > if all done
> > from one cluster but still possible otherwise)
> > use for example
> > +MY_ORDER_NUMBER=[x]
> > in the submit file and ensure this ticks on every time
> >
> > increasing
> > RANK=-TARGET.MY_ORDER_NUMBER
> >
> > decreasing
> > RANK=TARGET.MY_ORDER_NUMBER
> >
> > if you have to play nicely with other machines this rank
> > expression must be
> > modified to correctly handle jobs which don't have this
> > attribute (using
> > =!= and/or =?=)
> >
> > Igf you haven't got control of the execute machines rank
> > you'll have some
> > issues...
> >
> > also you will have to deal with the possibility that:
> >
> > jobs 1-10 start
> > job 5 is vacated before finishing for some reasona at roughly
> > the same time
> > job 11 starts.
> > job 11 then completes before the negotiation cycle can swap 6
> > for it. job
> > 11 has now run before 6 and nothing can change that.
> >
> > This may not be a problem but this was not clear from your request.
> >
> > all sorts of options available really.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: condor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:condor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> > > Robert.Nordlund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: 05 August 2004 14:51
> > > To: Condor-Users Mail List
> > > Subject: Re: [Condor-users] about priorities
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello all.
> > >
> > > I am running a dedicated pool of Windows 2000 servers with
> > one central
> > > submit machine.  I submit 20 jobs with multiple processes and
> > > want to make
> > > sure that they are run in succession, i.e. Job1 is more
> > important than
> > > Job2, etc.  If the first 10 jobs are concurrently running how
> > > can I make
> > > sure that if Job1 fails due to a hardware failure that it
> > > will preempt the
> > > the claim of the lowest priority job?  Is this something
> > > fairly easy to
> > > accomplish with priorities/preemption?
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > Bob Nordlund
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > |---------+-------------------------------->
> > > |         |           Erik Paulson         |
> > > |         |           <epaulson@xxxxxxxxxxx|
> > > |         |           >                    |
> > > |         |           Sent by:             |
> > > |         |           condor-users-bounces@|
> > > |         |           cs.wisc.edu          |
> > > |         |                                |
> > > |         |                                |
> > > |         |           08/04/2004 10:43 PM  |
> > > |         |           Please respond to    |
> > > |         |           Condor-Users Mail    |
> > > |         |           List                 |
> > > |         |                                |
> > > |---------+-------------------------------->
> > >
> > > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -------------------------------------------------|
> > >   |
> > >                                                    |
> > >   |       To:       Condor-Users Mail List
> > > <condor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >         |
> > >   |       cc:
> > >                                                    |
> > >   |       Subject:  Re: [Condor-users] about priorities
> > >                                                    |
> > >
> > > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -------------------------------------------------|
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 06:16:45PM -0500, David A. Kotz wrote:
> > > > I think what you want to do is to set the following in your
> > > > condor_config:
> > > >
> > > > SUSPEND = FALSE
> > > > PREEMPT = FALSE
> > > > KILL = FALSE
> > > >
> > >
> > > That will help prevent the local machine from evicting the
> > > job (you'll also
> > > probably want have START = TRUE, or some such)
> > >
> > > Those expresssions have nothing to do with preemption for priority
> > > purposes, though. Condor can "preempt" a job for two 
> reasons - one,
> > > because the local conditions on the machine force us to get
> > > rid of a job,
> > > or two, because there is a user with a higher priority who
> > > wants to run a
> > > job. That preemption is controlled by
> > PREEMPTION_REQUIREMENTS. It is a
> > > pool-wide setting that is evaluated only when Condor has a higher
> > > priority user who wants to run a job. It is tested against
> > > each machine
> > > in the pool to see if the job currently running on that machine
> > > can be preempted.
> > >
> > > To prevent priority preemption, set:
> > >
> > > PREEMPTION_REQUIREMENTS = FALSE
> > >
> > > in the config file of your central manager.
> > >
> > > -Erik
> > >
> > > each machine of the pool.
> > > > - dave
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 03:44 -0700, Fernando Rannou wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > I'm a little confused on how Condor handles priorities.
> > > > > On Section 2.7.2 of the Condor manual it reads:
> > > > > ---------
> > > > > "The priority of each individual user changes according
> > > to the number
> > > > > of resources the individual is using.
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "For instance, if a low priority user is utilizing 
> all available
> > > machines
> > > > > and suddenly a higher priority user submits jobs, Condor
> > > > > will immediately checkpoint and vacate jobs belonging to
> > > > > the lower priority user."
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------
> > > > > Which priority do they refer to? Effective, Real, Factor??
> > > > >
> > > > > We need that once a job is running it never, ever
> > > > > gets preempted, suspended, killed, or whatever
> > > > > no matter how long it's been running and
> > > > > no matter how low its priority is.
> > > > >
> > > > > How can I accomplished that?
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > Fernando
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > IMPORTANT WARNING:  This email (and any attachments) is
> > > only intended
> > > for the use of the person or entity to which it is
> > addressed, and may
> > > contain information that is privileged and confidential.  You, the
> > > recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and
> > > confidential
> > > manner.  Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain
> > > confidentiality
> > > may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the
> > > recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and
> > > delete this
> > > message from your computer.
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Condor-users mailing list
> > > > > Condor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > http://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/condor-users
> > > > --
> > > > David A. Kotz <dkotz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Condor-users mailing list
> > > > Condor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > http://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/condor-users
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Condor-users mailing list
> > > Condor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/condor-users
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > **************************************************************
> > > ***********
> > > PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This communication, including
> > > attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may
> > > contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged
> > > information.  If you are not the intended recipient, any use,
> > > copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is
> > > strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient,
> > > please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete
> > > this communication and destroy all copies.
> > > **************************************************************
> > > ***********
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Condor-users mailing list
> > > Condor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/condor-users
> > >
> >
> >
> > *****************************************************************
> > Gloucester Research Limited believes the information
> > provided herein is reliable. While every care has been
> > taken to ensure accuracy, the information is furnished
> > to the recipients with no warranty as to the completeness
> > and accuracy of its contents and on condition that any
> > errors or omissions shall not be made the basis for any
> > claim, demand or cause for action.
> > *****************************************************************
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Condor-users mailing list
> > Condor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/condor-users
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **************************************************************
> > ***********
> > PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This communication, including
> > attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may
> > contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged
> > information.  If you are not the intended recipient, any use,
> > copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is
> > strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient,
> > please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete
> > this communication and destroy all copies.
> > **************************************************************
> > ***********
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Condor-users mailing list
> > Condor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/condor-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Condor-users mailing list
> Condor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/condor-users
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **************************************************************
> ***********
> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This communication, including 
> attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may 
> contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged 
> information.  If you are not the intended recipient, any use, 
> copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is 
> strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, 
> please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete 
> this communication and destroy all copies.
> **************************************************************
> ***********
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Condor-users mailing list
> Condor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/condor-users
>