Re: [HTCondor-users] sanity check on preemption

[Todd L Miller <tlmiller@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> A job would not preempt by evicting a job, destroying partitioned slot, 
> and creating a new partitioned slot of a different size to match the new 
> job.

	We tend to call the slot that was created as a result of dividing 
a partitionable slot a 'dynamic slot', but yes, you're generally right.

> For some context, I enabled preemption on a cluster with partitionable 
> slots with a PREEMPTION_REQUIREMENTS that looks if a job was running 
> longer than 48 hours and priority is 20% higher. However, there are jobs 
> that keep running after the 48 hour mark even when there are queued jobs 
> waiting to run.

	I assume you've verified that (a) the queued jobs match the slots 
on which the >48 hour jobs are running and (b) that the owner of the 
queued jobs in fact has a priority that's 20% higher?  (How does your 
PREEMPTION_REQUIREMENTS determine that?)

- ToddM