- slurm-users - lists.schedmd.com

preemptable queue
by Davide DelVento 13 Jan '24

13 Jan '24

I would like to add a preemptable queue to our cluster. Actually I already have. We simply want jobs submitted to that queue be preempted if there are no resources available for jobs in other (high priority) queues. Conceptually very simple, no conditionals, no choices, just what I wrote. However it does not work as desired. This is the relevant part: grep -i Preemp /opt/slurm/slurm.conf #PreemptType = preempt/partition_prio PartitionName=regular DefMemPerCPU=4580 Default=True Nodes=node[01-12] State=UP PreemptMode=off PriorityTier=200 PartitionName=All DefMemPerCPU=4580 Nodes=node[01-36] State=UP PreemptMode=off PriorityTier=500 PartitionName=lowpriority DefMemPerCPU=4580 Nodes=node[01-36] State=UP PreemptMode=cancel PriorityTier=100 That PreemptType setting (now commented) fully breaks slurm, everything refuses to run with errors like $ squeue squeue: error: PreemptType and PreemptMode values incompatible squeue: fatal: Unable to process configuration file If I understand correctly the documentation at https://slurm.schedmd.com/preempt.html that is because preemption cannot cancel jobs based on partition priority, which (if true) is really unfortunate. I understand that allowing cross-partition time-slicing could be tricky and so I understand why that isn't allowed, but cancelling? Anyway, I have to questions: 1) is that correct and so should I avoid using either partition priority or cancelling? 2) is there an easy way to trick slurm into requeing and then have those jobs cancelled instead? 3) I guess the cleanest option would be to implement QoS, but I've never done it and we don't really need it for anything else other than this. The documentation looks complicated, but is it? The great Ole's website is unavailable at the moment... Thanks!!

2 4

Re: [slurm-users] sacct --name --status filtering
by Drucker, Daniel 11 Jan '24

11 Jan '24

Yes, that makes sense. Thank you! The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Mass General Brigham Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline <https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline> . Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted). If you do not wish to continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of this message immediately. Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail.

1 0

sacct --name --status filtering
by Drucker, Daniel 11 Jan '24

11 Jan '24

What am I misunderstanding about how sacct filtering works here? I would have expected the second command to show the exact same results as the first. [root@mickey ddrucker]# sacct --starttime $(date -d "7 days ago" +"%Y-%m-%d") -X --format JobID,JobName,State,Elapsed --name zsh JobID JobName State Elapsed ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- 257713 zsh COMPLETED 00:01:02 257714 zsh COMPLETED 00:04:01 257715 zsh COMPLETED 00:03:01 257716 zsh COMPLETED 00:03:01 [root@mickey ddrucker]# sacct --starttime $(date -d "7 days ago" +"%Y-%m-%d") -X --format JobID,JobName,State,Elapsed --name zsh --state COMPLETED JobID JobName State Elapsed ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- [root@mickey ddrucker]# sinfo --version slurm 21.08.8-2 -- Daniel M. Drucker, Ph.D. Director of IT, MGB Imaging at Belmont McLean Hospital, a Harvard Medical School Affiliate The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Mass General Brigham Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline <https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline> . Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted). If you do not wish to continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of this message immediately. Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail.

3 2

Re: [slurm-users] sacct --name --status filtering
by Drucker, Daniel 11 Jan '24

11 Jan '24

> All I can say is that this has to do with --starttime and that you have to read the manual really carefully about how they interact, including when you have --endtime set. It’s a bit fiddly and annoying, IMO, and I can never quite remember how it works. Oh, I think I understand. --starttime actually behaves differently when --state is present: If states are given with the '-s' option then only jobs in this state at this time will be returned. So is there a way to do what I want? I want to see jobs which - started later than 7 days ago - whose state is COMPLETED Surely that's possible without resorting to grep? Daniel The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Mass General Brigham Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline <https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline> . Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted). If you do not wish to continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of this message immediately. Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail.

1 0

Cleanup of old clusters in database
by Jeffrey R. Lang 11 Jan '24

11 Jan '24

We have shuttered two clusters and need to remove them from the database. To do this, do we remove the table spaces associated with the cluster names from the Slurm database? Thanks, Jeff

1 0

Re: [slurm-users] DBD_SEND_MULT_MSG - invalid uid error (Timony, Mick)
by Craig Stark 11 Jan '24

11 Jan '24

All good ideas Mick – - I've restarted slurmd on all nodes – no effect - Ran this on all nodes: #!/bin/bash uname -n id slurm id 59999 scontrol show config | grep SlurmUser All show slurm being that 59999 user. - The firewalld already has the internal network interface being used set to the trusted zone I get a bit more info out of setting the slurmctld to debug level, but I'm not sure what to make of it TBH. I'm not sure what "_handle_mult_rc_ret: PERSIST_RC is 2002 from DBD_SEND_MULT_MSG(1474)" is trying to tell me. Jan 10 10:48:26 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: error: DBD_SEND_MULT_JOB_START message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:48:31 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: error: DBD_SEND_MULT_JOB_START message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:48:35 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: debug: accounting_storage/slurmdbd: _handle_mult_rc_ret: PERSIST_RC is 2002 from DBD_SEND_MULT_MSG(1474): DBD_SEND_MULT_MSG message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:48:36 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: error: DBD_SEND_MULT_JOB_START message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:48:41 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: error: DBD_SEND_MULT_JOB_START message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:48:46 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: error: DBD_SEND_MULT_JOB_START message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:48:46 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: debug: sched/backfill: _attempt_backfill: beginning Jan 10 10:48:46 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: debug: sched/backfill: _attempt_backfill: no jobs to backfill Jan 10 10:48:51 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: error: DBD_SEND_MULT_JOB_START message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:48:53 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: debug: accounting_storage/slurmdbd: _handle_mult_rc_ret: PERSIST_RC is 2002 from DBD_SEND_MULT_MSG(1474): DBD_SEND_MULT_MSG message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:48:56 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: error: DBD_SEND_MULT_JOB_START message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:49:01 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: error: DBD_SEND_MULT_JOB_START message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:49:06 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: error: DBD_SEND_MULT_JOB_START message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:49:11 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: debug: accounting_storage/slurmdbd: _handle_mult_rc_ret: PERSIST_RC is 2002 from DBD_SEND_MULT_MSG(1474): DBD_SEND_MULT_MSG message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:49:11 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: error: DBD_SEND_MULT_JOB_START message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:49:16 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: error: DBD_SEND_MULT_JOB_START message from invalid uid Jan 10 10:49:17 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: debug: sched: Running job scheduler for full queue. Jan 10 10:49:21 kirby slurmctld[461138]: slurmctld: error: DBD_SEND_MULT_JOB_START message from invalid uid A bit more info / another possible clue. While "sacctmgr list Account" or "sacctmgr list user" shows expected account groups and users, "sreport user top start=12/1/23" and "sreport cluster utilization start=12/1/23" both report empty tables. Craig Stark, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Neurobiology and Behavior Director, Facility for Imaging and Brain Research (FIBRE) Director, Campus Center for Neuroimaging (CCNI) School of Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine cestark(a)uci.edu<mailto:cestark@uci.edu>

1 0

Beginner admin question: Prioritization within a partition based on time limit
by Kenneth Chiu 10 Jan '24

10 Jan '24

I'm just learning about slurm. I understand that different different partitions can be prioritized separately, and can have different max time limits. I was wondering whether or not there was a way to have a finer-grained prioritization based on the time limit specified by a job, within a single partition. Or perhaps this is already happening by default? Would the backfill scheduler be best for this?

2 1

Re: [slurm-users] DBD_SEND_MULT_MSG - invalid uid error
by Craig Stark 09 Jan '24

09 Jan '24

This ticket with SchedMD implies it's a munged issue: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bugs.schedmd.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293__… Is the munge daemon running on all systems? If it is, are all servers running a network time daemon such chronyd or ntpd and the time is in sync on all hosts? Thanks Mick, munge is seemingly running on all systems (systemctl status munge). I do get a warning about the munge file changing on disk, but I'm pretty sure that's from warewulf sync'ing files every minute. A sha256sum on the munge.key file on the compute nodes and host node says they're the same, so I think I can put that aside. The management node runs chrony and the compute nodes sync to the management node. [root@kirby uber]# chronyc tracking Reference ID : 4A06A849 (t2.time.gq1.yahoo.com) Stratum : 3 Ref time (UTC) : Mon Jan 08 22:26:44 2024 System time : 0.000032525 seconds slow of NTP time Last offset : -0.000021390 seconds RMS offset : 0.000055729 seconds Frequency : 38.797 ppm slow Residual freq : +0.001 ppm Skew : 0.018 ppm Root delay : 0.033342984 seconds Root dispersion : 0.000524800 seconds Update interval : 256.8 seconds Leap status : Normal vs [root@sonic01 ~]# chronyc tracking Reference ID : C0A80102 (warewulf) Stratum : 4 Ref time (UTC) : Mon Jan 08 22:31:02 2024 System time : 0.000000120 seconds slow of NTP time Last offset : -0.000000092 seconds RMS offset : 0.000014737 seconds Frequency : 47.495 ppm slow Residual freq : +0.000 ppm Skew : 0.066 ppm Root delay : 0.033458963 seconds Root dispersion : 0.000283949 seconds Update interval : 64.2 seconds Leap status : Normal So, the compute node is talking to the host and the host is talking to generic NTP sources. "date" shows the same time on the compute nodes

1 0

Re: [slurm-users] DBD_SEND_MULT_MSG - invalid uid error
by Craig Stark 09 Jan '24

09 Jan '24

3rd time trying to get this to come through to the list - hopefully this time works. I've been running SLURM for several years now, but in setting it up on a new cluster, I'm hitting a recurring issue. I'm using a MariaDB and configured it just as I had in my several-year-ago setup and in the docs. There's a "slurm" user (59999) on the OS (Rocky 9), that's on all the nodes, and I've added the slurm@localhost as instructed (grant all on slurm_acct_db.* TO 'slurm'@'localhost' identified by 'PASSWORD'). But, I keep getting things like this: ``` Dec 22 14:22:07 kirby slurmdbd[14518]: slurmdbd: error: DBD_SEND_MULT_MSG message from invalid uid 59999 Dec 22 14:22:07 kirby slurmdbd[14518]: slurmdbd: error: Processing last message from connection 7(192.168.1.2) uid(59999) Dec 22 14:22:07 kirby slurmdbd[14518]: slurmdbd: error: CONN:7 DBD_REGISTER_CTLD message from invalid uid 59999 Dec 22 14:22:07 kirby slurmdbd[14518]: slurmdbd: error: CONN:7 Security violation, DBD_REGISTER_CTLD Dec 22 14:22:07 kirby slurmdbd[14518]: slurmdbd: error: Processing last message from connection 7(192.168.1.2) uid(59999) ``` I'm a total SQL noob, but can at least verify that the user is in there: MariaDB [(none)]> SELECT User, Host, Password FROM mysql.user; +-------------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+ | User | Host | Password | +-------------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+ | mariadb.sys | localhost | | | root | localhost | invalid | | mysql | localhost | invalid | | slurm | localhost | *D6665ECF4F3CB12BCA836117F7727B6D0B78D644 | +-------------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+ 4 rows in set (0.002 sec) Any thoughts as to where I might look to fix this? Craig

2 1

Multifactor fair-share with single account
by Kamil Wilczek 08 Jan '24

08 Jan '24

Dear All, I have a question regarding the fair-share factor of the multifactor priority algorithm. My current understanding is that the fair-share makes sure that different *accounts* have a fair share of the computational power. But what if my organisation structure is flat and I have only one account where all my user reside. Is fair-share algorithm working in this situation -- does it take into account users (associations) from this single account, and tries to assing a fair-factor to each user? Or each user from this account have the same fair-factor at each iteration? And what if I have, say 3 accounts, but I do not wan't to calculate fair-share between accounts, but between all associations from all 3 accounts? In other words, is there a fair-share factor for users/associations instead of accounts? Kind regards -- Kamil Wilczek [https://keys.openpgp.org/] [D415917E84B8DA5A60E853B6E676ED061316B69B]

4 6

2025

2024