Mailing List Archives
Authenticated access
|
|
|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Condor-users] Understanding user priority and job preemption
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:07:29 +0100
- From: Jan Ploski <Jan.Ploski@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Condor-users] Understanding user priority and job preemption
condor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx schrieb am 03/15/2007 04:53:16 PM:
> Jan Ploski wrote:
> > Today I analyzed my problem some more. In particular, I tested a
variant
> > without any nodes that don't match job requirements. That is, I tested
> > with 20 rather than 60 total nodes.
> >
> > As before, user A has priority 4 and user B has priority 8.
> >
> > In the 20-node scenario, I can observe the following behavior:
> > 1. If user A submits jobs first, taking all machines, and user B comes
in
> > later, then user B does not get any machines - A's jobs are never
> > preempted. User B does not get machines even if I remove some running
jobs
> > of user A. In this case A's jobs are preferred,
> > no matter what.
> >
>
> This is the scenario in which CLAIM_WORKLIFE should decrease the amount
> of time it takes to balance out the share of the pool. Without limiting
> the lifespan of claims, it is expected that user A will retain 100% of
> the pool in the case you describe.
Hmm... I think my tests were run with CLAIM_WORKLIFE = 1 and starvation
still occurred. I will try again to be sure.
> > - Why is Condor assigning "pie slices" based on the total number of
nodes
> > in the pool rather than the total number of matching nodes?
> >
>
> The negotiator (as currently implemented) does not have a big list of
> all the jobs from all the users. It just has a list of submitters (i.e.
> users), and it only ever considers one job at a time when making
> matchmaking decisions.
>
> > - Is there any way to achieve the expected 1:2 ratio between two users
> > competing for N specific machines of a pool with a total size of M >=
3*N?
> >
> If you know in advance that users A and B will only ever be able to run
> on N machines within your pool, then you could use group quotas to
> specify their share of the N machines.
I will look into that. Thanks!
Best regards,
Jan Ploski
--
Dipl.-Inform. (FH) Jan Ploski
OFFIS
Betriebliches Informationsmanagement
Escherweg 2 - 26121 Oldenburg - Germany
Fon: +49 441 9722 - 184 Fax: +49 441 9722 - 202
E-Mail: Jan.Ploski@xxxxxxxx - URL: http://www.offis.de