Difference between revisions of "Mek-quake Queueing system"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
import>Cen1001 |
import>Cen1001 |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
the number of users to 8 or fewer, so that everyone can use up to 32 |
the number of users to 8 or fewer, so that everyone can use up to 32 |
||
processors and no jobs will need to be queued. |
processors and no jobs will need to be queued. |
||
| + | |||
| + | My worry about a two week queue that it is only workable for the system's users if, as you say, there is no queue of waiting jobs. I am not sure that will be true on this system, but we'll see when the usage settles down. It also has problems for systems administration. --[[User:cen1001|Catherine]] 16:35, 21 June 2006 (BST) |
||
Revision as of 15:35, 21 June 2006
Please write your thoughts about the mek-quake queueing system here. And please sign your posts! --Catherine 16:26, 21 June 2006 (BST)
Posted by Catherine on behalf of David Wales:
We are definitely going to need a two week queue. I don't think we need more than 32 processors, though. I think the ideal scenario is to keep the number of users to 8 or fewer, so that everyone can use up to 32 processors and no jobs will need to be queued.
My worry about a two week queue that it is only workable for the system's users if, as you say, there is no queue of waiting jobs. I am not sure that will be true on this system, but we'll see when the usage settles down. It also has problems for systems administration. --Catherine 16:35, 21 June 2006 (BST)