[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Condor-users] Re: split processors among multiple jobs
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:38:10 -0800
- From: Oliver Hotz <oliver@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Condor-users] Re: split processors among multiple jobs
hmm.. adding this to my .sub file doesn`t seem to be changing anything..
am i doing this correctly ?
MyClusterPriority = 1
priority = (MyClusterPriority * 1000) -$(Process)
The Priority for each submitted job still shows up at 0, and when 2 jobs
are submitted, they don`t get "interleaved"
any ideas ?
Matt Hope wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:16:41 -0600, Derek Wright <wright@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:34:33 +0000 Matt Hope wrote:
Note that pushing a new job to the top of the queue may trigger anot true for user-defined job priorities (what we're talking about in
preemption of an existing job which might not be optimal, I would
suggest any accelerator script should find out the lowest priority of
the currently running jobs and never exceed that...
this thread). the schedd will never preempt a job because of these
priority values, so you don't have to worry about that. user
priorities (the fair-share stuff enforced by the negotiator, which you
can view/manage via condor_userprio) can cause preemption (if the
PREEMPTION_REQUIREMENTS expression evaluates to true), but job
priorities never do.
Does this apply if the jobs are, in essence, running only via the
ranking by the execute machines... So if the schedd puts another job
to the top of its list which is ranked lower by the execute machines
this will not cause the currently running job previously at the top
(which presumably had at least as good a machine rank) to be
I have behaviour like the above I assumed what was happening was down
to this mismatch (which did exist on their schedd) and educated the
user on making sure their TIER levels matched their user supplied
priority but if I was wrong I probably need to find out why the
Condor-users mailing list