Just to add to the group accounting confusion (and trying to ping this
unanswered topic) I get strange matchmaking behaviour when using group
quotas:
If I have two dagman jobs from the same user, one with both higher
priority and machine rank preference the execution order of the jobs is
strict: all higher
priority jobs run before the lower priority jobs are started.
But if I assign the jobs to a group than the execution order gets
mingled, the two jobs get roughly equal share of processors.
Can it be a configuration issue? Is there anything I can check to get
the same matchmaking logic as without groups, using quotas just to limit
the processor usage of the jobs?
Using 6.9.3 by the way.
Cheers,
Szabolcs
Horvátth Szabolcs wrote:
Hi,
I'm using group quota to limit job count because of the available
licenses we have for commercial softwares.
While this works nicely I have two problems that I'd like to solve somehow:
- If multiple users submit jobs using the same group the users' personal
priorities are not considered for negotiation.
I'd like to have fair share between users within a group too. Is it
possible to do so?
- When a job is running as "part of a group" the users' information is
not added to the condor_status -submitters data.
Is there any way to get data about the actual users submitting the jobs
using condor_status and condor_userprio?
Thanks for any pointers!
Cheers,
Szabolcs
_______________________________________________
Condor-users mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to condor-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with a
subject: Unsubscribe
You can also unsubscribe by visiting
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/condor-users
The archives can be found at:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/archive/condor-users/