Difference between revisions of "Mek-quake Queueing system"
import>Cen1001 |
import>Gf247 |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
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) |
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) |
||
| + | |||
| + | I would like to have fewer nodes but for a long time (2 weeks). In this way I don't have to bother restarting and I don't have to wait in the queue for ever. What about we go down to 16 nodes queue ? In this way the system should be more optimized (less dead time waiting for 32 nodes to become free..) [User:gf247|Giorgio] |
||
Revision as of 17:25, 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)
My thoughts are that what works best on most of the other clusters to keep everyone satisfied is a fairly short maximum queue length, a limit on idle jobs, and priority that is strongly influenced by fairshare. This is what I have set up for the moment. We need to see how it works on this particular machine and then tweak it if people are unhappy --Catherine 16:41, 21 June 2006 (BST)
Comment 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)
I would like to have fewer nodes but for a long time (2 weeks). In this way I don't have to bother restarting and I don't have to wait in the queue for ever. What about we go down to 16 nodes queue ? In this way the system should be more optimized (less dead time waiting for 32 nodes to become free..) [User:gf247|Giorgio]