Since youâre dealing with the entire universe at the CGSA, I suspect your data sets are much larger than mine. *chuckle* Most of our inputs have no trouble fitting in the systemsâ buffer cache and so N-1 jobs on N cores read them from there instead of the network (also I have âatimeâ turned off on the NFS mountpoints), and a lot of our systems have 10Gb since the Brocade switch per-port cost and the incremental cost of an 10Gb HP FlexLOM hasnât been prohibitively high.
I gather in 8.6 network bandwidth will be a manageable resource â thatâll be nice.
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ -Michael Pelletier.
From: HTCondor-users [mailto:htcondor-users-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Downes
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 12:16 PM
To: HTCondor-Users Mail List <htcondor-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [HTCondor-users] Filling pool breadth-first with partitionable slots (Beyer, Christoph)
I like depth-first owing as it is an anti-fragmentation tool, but breadth-first is, in my experience, better for input file transfers in the real-world because my storage can easily swamps the 1GbE network interface on an N-core machine run N jobs.
HTCondor-users mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to htcondor-users-request@cs.
You can also unsubscribe by visiting
The archives can be found at: