[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Condor-users] Better control over negotiator?
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 20:17:26 +0100
- From: Steffen Grunewald <steffen.grunewald@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Condor-users] Better control over negotiator?
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 10:03:01AM -0500, Ian Chesal wrote:
> So we fill our machines "width first". If the system is empty jobs start
> on all the slot1@<machine> locations then start filling up the
> slot2@<machine> locations. That way, in a system with light load, the
> jobs get to run on as free a machine as possible. We do this with:
IMHO this would efficiently lock out occasional big jobs.
> ALTERA_NEGOTIATOR_POST_JOB_RANK = (((Activity =?= 'Owner') * (State =?=
> 'Idle')) * 1000000000) + ((Activity =?= 'Unclaimed') * 100000000) +
> (KFlops * 0.001) - (VirtualMachineID * 10)
Why would one check for "Owner" during negotiation?
Your expression would favour slot 1 over slot 2. Not what we're looking for.
> ALTERA_NEGOTIATOR_PRE_JOB_RANK = (((Activity =?= 'Owner') * (State =?=
> 'Idle')) * 1000000000) + ((Activity =?= 'Unclaimed') * 100000000)
same as above: if a slot is in Owner/Idle state, it's not matchable.