Re: [Condor-users] Better control over negotiator?

[Steffen Grunewald <steffen.grunewald@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 10:03:01AM -0500, Ian Chesal wrote:
> So we fill our machines "width first". If the system is empty jobs start
> on all the slot1@<machine> locations then start filling up the
> slot2@<machine> locations. That way, in a system with light load, the
> jobs get to run on as free a machine as possible. We do this with:

IMHO this would efficiently lock out occasional big jobs.

> ALTERA_NEGOTIATOR_POST_JOB_RANK = (((Activity =?= 'Owner') * (State =?=
> 'Idle')) * 1000000000) + ((Activity =?= 'Unclaimed') * 100000000) +
> (KFlops * 0.001) - (VirtualMachineID * 10)

Why would one check for "Owner" during negotiation?

Your expression would favour slot 1 over slot 2. Not what we're looking for.

> ALTERA_NEGOTIATOR_PRE_JOB_RANK =  (((Activity =?= 'Owner') * (State =?=
> 'Idle')) * 1000000000) + ((Activity =?= 'Unclaimed') * 100000000)

same as above: if a slot is in Owner/Idle state, it's not matchable.
Confusing.

Steffen