[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Condor-users] questions about job , user priority and machine rank
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:08:19 +0800 (HKT)
- From: "Carson Hung" <carson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [Condor-users] questions about job , user priority and machine rank
Thanks alot for your reply, very clear explanations.
One more question about negotiator and submittor.
The decision on which machines match to which users are done in scheduler,
right? If there are more than one schedulers in this case, how can you do
scheduling? I have this question as I have read from your previous post
that you have in fact 4 submittors and more than 1 grid sites.
So in this case, it is very similar to condor-g environment in fact.
Thanks very much,
> I can't say anything about condor-g because I'm not a condor-g user. But
> I can throw my $0.02 in on some of your other questions...
>> Other than that, I am a little bit confuse about Ranking and
>> priority, it seems that the higher rank (I mean the number),
>> the machine should be chosen. For higher priority (I mean the
>> number also), the jobs should not be chosen. Should be
>> reverse to that of rank, right?
> You have RANK correct: higher is better. For priority you have to be
> careful. There are two priorities in condor: the user-specified job
> priority and the condor-calculated user priority. For the job priority,
> set by the user when they submit their cluster, higher is better. Jobs
> with higher job priority on a schedd will run before jobs with lower job
> priority on the same schedd. The condor-calculated user priority is a
> running count of how many machines the user is currently using. The
> lower the number the better if they user is trying to get more machines.
> The negotiator sorts users during the negotiation cycles from lowest
> user priority to highest and the lowest priority user gets more
> resources when compared to higher priority users.
>> One more questions about retirementtime, I am not so
>> understand what it means, it means the amount of time the
>> jobs can be run without preempted?
> Retirement time and preemption work together. If a job (and/or a
> machine) defines a retirement time for running jobs then when another
> job wants to preempt a running job on that machine a count down timer is
> started and the running job is given the amount of time specificed in
> the retirement time to complete what ever it is doing before normal
> preemption (checkpointing if it's a standard universe job, then hard
> killing and sending the job back to it's queue) occurs. If the running
> job can finish in the time alloted by retirement time then the machine
> is handed over to the preempting job without any additional fuss.
> - Ian
> Condor-users mailing list