[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [HTCondor-users] Limiting max number of running jobs for a group
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:03:02 -0400
- From: Jose Caballero <jcaballero.hep@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [HTCondor-users] Limiting max number of running jobs for a group
2017-09-21 11:06 GMT+02:00 Antonio Delgado Peris
> Dear all,
> This is my first message to the list, so I'll start by presenting myself :-)
> I am writing from CIEMAT institute, at Madrid, Spain, where we have recently
> installed a HTCondor cluster (with an HTCondor-CE in front of it). We're
> still in the testing phase, but should be moving to production fairly soon.
> We'll be serving mostly (but not uniquely) the LHC CMS experiment.
> So moving to my question... we've defined some hierarchical dynamic group
> quotas, with surplus allowed, which is nice because we want minor groups to
> be able to use the farm if CMS is not running for some reason. However, we
> also would like to limit their expansion, so that they cannot occupy the
> whole farm (to speed up CMS taking over the farm when their jobs come back).
> Naively, this would be like having both dynamic (soft, fair share-like)
> quotas and static (hard) quotas for some groups. But the manual says that if
> you define both dynamic and static quotas, the dynamic one is ignored.
> I have looked for another parameter like 'MAX_RUNNING_JOBS_PER_GROUP' but
> haven't found anything like that. I have also tried to code some logic in
> the START expression using 'SubmitterGroupResourcesInUse', but it didn't
> work (I think that attribute is only usable for preemption... which we don't
> We have solved the situation by just reserving some named nodes to CMS, but
> I was still curious if there might be a less static solution to the
> problem--i.e.: not tied to a fixed set of nodes, but just stating a max
> number of simultaneous running jobs.
> Thanks for any hints. (And sorry if this question has been replied
> earlier... I couldn't find it)
not an expert myself, but I believe that if you use groups and
subgroups, in an scenario where the parent group does not allow
surplus but the children do, then you allow children to use idle
resources but never beyond the hard limit impossible by the parent.
Would that work?