[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [HTCondor-users] Group Quotas and Preemption

Erik, thank you for your answer.

I have read the your post (well written and helpful, BTW). One thing that's unclear to me: in your post, just before verifying that usage is according to quota, you set group A and B's priority, in order to allow preemption.

So, in essence, you rely on artificially tweaking user priorities to trigger preemption, while I would like it to occur whenever actual usage is not according to the group quotas.

I thought about using priority factors (condor_userprio -setfactor) so that the negotiator would consider preemption more-or-less in congruence with my group quotas (as described here: https://nmi.cs.wisc.edu/node/1490).

But in that case, do I really need group quotas? Wouldn't the priority factors be enough?

-----Original Message-----
From: HTCondor-users [mailto:htcondor-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Erik Erlandson
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:15 PM
To: HTCondor-Users Mail List
Subject: Re: [HTCondor-users] Group Quotas and Preemption

----- Original Message -----

What you are describing in terms of group quota sharing sounds more or less like a "condo cluster" use case, which you can obtain by configuring "GROUP_AUTOREGROUP = True"  (or it can be enabled or disabled on a per-group basis with GROUP_AUTOREGROUP_<groupname>).

> Â Whenever a user from a group which is under-using its quota submits 
> a job, and the pool is fully claimed, I'd like for preemption to occur.

If I understand your description, this part of the behavior can be configured as described here:

HTCondor-users mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to htcondor-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with a
subject: Unsubscribe
You can also unsubscribe by visiting

The archives can be found at:
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.