telling ts a job to take more than one slot

113 views
Skip to first unread message

Lluís Batlle i Rossell

unread,
Apr 4, 2012, 12:42:57 PM4/4/12
to Llista de Task Spooler
Litvinov asked at mailing list join time if he can tell 'ts' that a new job will
take more than one slot.

Now you can't, but I find it an interesting idea...

Do you have any suggestion for a command line argument to do that?

Thank you,
Lluís.

Litvinov Sergey

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 7:16:52 AM4/11/12
to taskspooler

> Do you have any suggestion for a command line argument to do that?

MPI uses "-n"
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/research/projects/mpi/www/www1/mpiexec.html

But in ts "-n" is taken. Can it be "-N"?

Lluís Batlle i Rossell

unread,
Apr 16, 2012, 6:02:08 PM4/16/12
to tasks...@googlegroups.com

It sounds fine. Some of these days I'll try to implement it...

Of course if you want to try, feel free to send a patch :)

I hope you are not in a hurry.

Thank you,
Lluís.

Lluís Batlle i Rossell

unread,
May 23, 2012, 1:41:24 PM5/23/12
to tasks...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:02:08AM +0200, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 04:16:52AM -0700, Litvinov Sergey wrote:
> >
> > > Do you have any suggestion for a command line argument to do that?
> >
> > MPI uses "-n"
> > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/research/projects/mpi/www/www1/mpiexec.html
> >
> > But in ts "-n" is taken. Can it be "-N"?
>
> It sounds fine. Some of these days I'll try to implement it...
>
> Of course if you want to try, feel free to send a patch :)

I'm trying to implement this... and I've to choose what to do in this case, with
example numbers:

1) The server has 3 slots free of 5
2) The next job in the queue requires 4 slots (-N 4), and the next jobs only one
each.

Should I make 'ts' a) process the next jobs (of one slot each), or simply b) wait for
the server to have 4 slots free?

I'd first think of wanting the option 'a', because the queue order has some
importance in ts. But due to the multiple slots option, although the start of
jobs is delivered in strict order, the ending of jobs is totally out of order,
so accepting the option b) has some sense too.

What do you think?

Lluís Batlle i Rossell

unread,
May 26, 2012, 9:51:55 AM5/26/12
to tasks...@googlegroups.com
I think I'll go for 'b'. I can't see what matters on the jobs being started on
order, careless of when they finish. For those wanting order, there is '-d'
already.

Raúl Salinas Monteagudo

unread,
May 26, 2012, 12:06:52 PM5/26/12
to tasks...@googlegroups.com

2012/5/23 Lluís Batlle i Rossell <vi...@viric.name>

Should I make 'ts' a) process the next jobs (of one slot each), or simply b) wait for
the server to have 4 slots free?

Under a system with an endless stream of single-slot jobs, does not (b) lead to starvation of multislot jobs?

Lluís Batlle i Rossell

unread,
May 26, 2012, 12:58:32 PM5/26/12
to tasks...@googlegroups.com
Umh can be. Good point. But well, the current solution is still better than not
having "-N" at all, I think.

Any idea to overcome this? Do you prefer a) ?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages