[gridengine users] Strange behavior with functional scheduling

David Rosenstrauch darose at darose.net
Mon Oct 9 22:00:50 UTC 2017


On 2017-10-09 5:45 pm, Reuti wrote:
> Am 09.10.2017 um 23:01 schrieb David Rosenstrauch:
> 
>> I'm a bit of a SGE noob, so please bear with me.  We're in the process 
>> of a first-time SGE deploy for the users in our department.  Although 
>> we've been able to use SGE, submit jobs to the queues successfully, 
>> etc., we're running into issues trying to get the fair-share 
>> scheduling - specifically the functional scheduling - to work 
>> correctly.
>> 
>> We have very simple functional scheduling enabled, via the following 
>> configuration settings:
>> 
>> enforce_user                 auto
>> auto_user_fshare             100
>> weight_tickets_functional         10000
>> schedd_job_info                   true
>> 
>> (In addition, the "weight_tickets_share" setting is set to 0, thereby 
>> disabling share tree scheduling.)
>> 
>> A colleague and I are testing this setup by both of us submitting 
>> multiple jobs to one of our queues simultaneously, with me first 
>> submitting a large number of jobs (100) and he submitting a fewer 
>> number (25) shortly afterwards.  Our understanding is that the 
>> functional scheduling policy should prevent one user from having their 
>> jobs completely dominate a queue.  And so our expectation is that even 
>> though my jobs were submitted first, and there are more of them, the 
>> scheduler should wind up giving his jobs a higher priority so that he 
>> is not forced to wait until all of my jobs complete before his run.  
>> (If he did have to wait, that would effectively be FIFO scheduling, 
>> not fair share.)
> 
> The display of the pending tickets has to be enabled too to see the
> effect (you should see them a being 0 right now in the pending list):
> 
> report_pjob_tickets               TRUE
> 
> In addition you can set the:
> 
> policy_hierarchy                  F
> 
> -- Reuti


Thanks for the feedback.

We do have report_pjob_tickets set to TRUE.  However, our 
policy_hierarchy is set to OFS.  Still, shouldn't that not be an issue 
if we have weight_tickets_share set to zero?  (I.e., if we're not using 
override or shared tree, then shouldn't this be effectively equivalent 
to "policy_hierarchy F"?)

Thanks,

DR



More information about the users mailing list