Re: [Condor-users] Requirements not respected

[Frédéric Bastien <nouiz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

thanks for the information, I will go see the hack when I have more time.

Frederic

Steffen Grunewald wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:13:34AM +0200, Johan Bengtsson wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > A similar discussion was brought up a few months ago. The concluding
> > mail from this discussion may be helpful.
> >
> > https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/archive/condor-users/2007-January/msg00195.shtml
>
>
> Indeed it looks very interesting though complicated (and hard to interpret
> from a non-admin point of view). 
> What I'd like to have is some code containing less "magic numbers": predefined
> CPU and memory counts are hard to maintain if you got some inhomogeneous
> pool and try to keep everything in one config file (even if there are different
> CPU counts, so a redefinition of MEMORY=3*(ORIGINAL_MEMORY) wouldn't help:
> with only 2 CPUs there would be 3 VMs, and the factor would be 2, etc.)
>
> Obviously this is some piece of legacy stuff - Condor wasn't developed for
> SMP machines in the first place, and it's static mapping of resources to
> virtual machines is a serious limitation in certain situations.
>
> I'm afraid this design "feature" isn't easily changed, and the Condor developers 
> would have to  modify the current code from the bottom up... but surely it would
> be a "nice to have" item for the 7.0 wishlist (now that multi-cores are emerging
> everywhere).
>
> Cheers,
>  Steffen