[slurm-users] CPUSpecList confusion

Wagner, Marcus Wagner at itc.rwth-aachen.de
Thu Dec 15 16:08:32 UTC 2022


Hmm…

That one is strange.

Can you try just hwloc-ls?
I wonder, how slurmd would get that information, if it is not hwloc-based

Best
Marcus 

Von unterwegs gesendet.

> Am 15.12.2022 um 16:00 schrieb Paul Raines <raines at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>:
> 
> 
> Nice find!
> 
> Unfortunately this does not work on the original box this whole
> issue started on where I found the "alternating scheme"
> 
> # slurmd -C
> NodeName=foobar CPUs=64 Boards=1 SocketsPerBoard=2 CoresPerSocket=16 ThreadsPerCore=2 RealMemory=256312
> UpTime=5-14:55:31
> 
> # hwloc-ls --only pu
> PU L#0 (P#0)
> PU L#1 (P#1)
> PU L#2 (P#2)
> PU L#3 (P#3)
> PU L#4 (P#4)
> PU L#5 (P#5)
> PU L#6 (P#6)
> PU L#7 (P#7)
> PU L#8 (P#8)
> PU L#9 (P#9)
> PU L#10 (P#10)
> PU L#11 (P#11)
> PU L#12 (P#12)
> PU L#13 (P#13)
> # grep ^proc /proc/cpuinfo  | wc
>     64     192     950
> 
> Which is really strange since it is listing only 14 lines on a machine
> with 16 cores in each of 2 sockets and hyperthreading on.
> 
> It is one of my newest boxes (Xeon Gold 6226R) so maybe hwloc just doesn't support it
> 
> I have hwloc-2.2.0 on Rocky 8 but just built the latest from git
> and it fails to.  Going to submit a bug in the hwloc git.
> 
> This command does work on all my other boxes so I do think using hwloc-ls is the "best" answer for getting the mapping on most hardware out there.
> 
> -- Paul Raines (http://help.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu)
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 1:24am, Marcus Wagner wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> as Slurm uses hwloc, I was looking into these tools a little bit deeper.
>> Using your script, I saw e.g. the following output on one node:
>> 
>> === 31495434
>> CPU_IDs=21-23,25
>> 21-23,25
>> === 31495433
>> CPU_IDs=16-18,20
>> 10-11,15,17
>> === 31487399
>> CPU_IDs=15
>> 9
>> 
>> That does not match your schemes and on first sight seems to be more random.
>> 
>> It seems, Slurm uses hwlocs logical indices, whereas cgroups uses the OS/physical indices.
>> According to the example above (excerpt of the full output of hwloc-ls)
>> 
>>      NUMANode L#1 (P#1 47GB)
>>      L2 L#12 (1024KB) + L1d L#12 (32KB) + L1i L#12 (32KB) + Core L#12 + PU
>>      L#12 (P#3)
>>      L2 L#13 (1024KB) + L1d L#13 (32KB) + L1i L#13 (32KB) + Core L#13 + PU
>>      L#13 (P#4)
>>      L2 L#14 (1024KB) + L1d L#14 (32KB) + L1i L#14 (32KB) + Core L#14 + PU
>>      L#14 (P#5)
>>      L2 L#15 (1024KB) + L1d L#15 (32KB) + L1i L#15 (32KB) + Core L#15 + PU
>>      L#15 (P#9)
>>      L2 L#16 (1024KB) + L1d L#16 (32KB) + L1i L#16 (32KB) + Core L#16 + PU
>>      L#16 (P#10)
>>      L2 L#17 (1024KB) + L1d L#17 (32KB) + L1i L#17 (32KB) + Core L#17 + PU
>>      L#17 (P#11)
>>      L2 L#18 (1024KB) + L1d L#18 (32KB) + L1i L#18 (32KB) + Core L#18 + PU
>>      L#18 (P#15)
>>      L2 L#19 (1024KB) + L1d L#19 (32KB) + L1i L#19 (32KB) + Core L#19 + PU
>>      L#19 (P#16)
>>      L2 L#20 (1024KB) + L1d L#20 (32KB) + L1i L#20 (32KB) + Core L#20 + PU
>>      L#20 (P#17)
>>      L2 L#21 (1024KB) + L1d L#21 (32KB) + L1i L#21 (32KB) + Core L#21 + PU
>>      L#21 (P#21)
>>      L2 L#22 (1024KB) + L1d L#22 (32KB) + L1i L#22 (32KB) + Core L#22 + PU
>>      L#22 (P#22)
>>      L2 L#23 (1024KB) + L1d L#23 (32KB) + L1i L#23 (32KB) + Core L#23 + PU
>>      L#23 (P#23)
>> 
>> 
>> That does seem to match.
>> 
>> and in short, to get the mapping, one can use
>> $> hwloc-ls --only pu
>> ...
>> PU L#10 (P#19)
>> PU L#11 (P#20)
>> PU L#12 (P#3)
>> PU L#13 (P#4)
>> PU L#14 (P#5)
>> PU L#15 (P#9)
>> PU L#16 (P#10)
>> PU L#17 (P#11)
>> PU L#18 (P#15)
>> PU L#19 (P#16)
>> PU L#20 (P#17)
>> PU L#21 (P#21)
>> PU L#22 (P#22)
>> PU L#23 (P#23)
>> ...
>> 
>> 
>> Best
>> Marcus
>> 
>>> Am 14.12.2022 um 18:11 schrieb Paul Raines:
>>> Ugh.  Guess I cannot count.  The mapping on that last node DOES work with
>>> the "alternating" scheme where we have
>>> 
>>>   0  0
>>>   1  2
>>>   2  4
>>>   3  6
>>>   4  8
>>>   5 10
>>>   6 12
>>>   7 14
>>>   8 16
>>>   9 18
>>> 10 20
>>> 11 22
>>> 12  1
>>> 13  3
>>> 14  5
>>> 15  7
>>> 16  9
>>> 17 11
>>> 18 13
>>> 19 15
>>> 20 17
>>> 21 19
>>> 22 21
>>> 23 23
>>> 
>>> so CPU_IDs=8-11,20-23 does correspond to cgroup 16-23
>>> 
>>> Using the script
>>> 
>>> cd /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/slurm
>>> for d in $(find -name 'job*') ; do
>>>    j=$(echo $d | cut -d_ -f3)
>>>    echo === $j
>>>    scontrol -d show job $j | grep CPU_ID | cut -d' ' -f7
>>>    cat $d/cpuset.effective_cpus
>>> done
>>> 
>>> === 1967214
>>> CPU_IDs=8-11,20-23
>>> 16-23
>>> === 1960208
>>> CPU_IDs=12-19
>>> 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15
>>> === 1966815
>>> CPU_IDs=0
>>> 0
>>> === 1966821
>>> CPU_IDs=6
>>> 12
>>> === 1966818
>>> CPU_IDs=3
>>> 6
>>> === 1966816
>>> CPU_IDs=1
>>> 2
>>> === 1966822
>>> CPU_IDs=7
>>> 14
>>> === 1966820
>>> CPU_IDs=5
>>> 10
>>> === 1966819
>>> CPU_IDs=4
>>> 8
>>> === 1966817
>>> CPU_IDs=2
>>> 4
>>> 
>>> On all my nodes I see just two schemes.  The alternating odd/even one
>>> above and one that is does not alternate like on this box with
>>> 
>>> CPUs=32 Boards=1 SocketsPerBoard=2 CoresPerSocket=16 ThreadsPerCore=1
>>> 
>>> === 1966495
>>> CPU_IDs=0-2
>>> 0-2
>>> === 1966498
>>> CPU_IDs=10-12
>>> 10-12
>>> === 1966502
>>> CPU_IDs=26-28
>>> 26-28
>>> === 1960064
>>> CPU_IDs=7-9,13-25
>>> 7-9,13-25
>>> === 1954480
>>> CPU_IDs=3-6
>>> 3-6
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 9:42am, Paul Raines wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, I see that on some of my other machines too.  So apicid is
>>>> definitely not what SLURM is using but somehow just lines up that way on
>>>> this one machine I have.
>>>> 
>>>> I think the issue is cgroups counts starting at 0 all the cores on the
>>>> first socket, then all the cores on the second socket.  But SLURM (on a
>>>> two socket box) counts 0 as the first core on the first socket, 1 as the
>>>> first core on the second socket, 2 as the second core on the first
>>>> socket,
>>>> 3 as the second core on the second socket, and so on. (Looks like I am
>>>> wrong: see below)
>>>> 
>>>> Why slurm does this instead of just using the assignments cgroups uses
>>>> I have no idea.  Hopefully one of the SLURM developers reads this
>>>> and can explain
>>>> 
>>>> Looking at another SLURM node I have (where cgroups v1 is still in use
>>>> and HT turned off) with definition
>>>> 
>>>> CPUs=24 Boards=1 SocketsPerBoard=2 CoresPerSocket=12 ThreadsPerCore=1
>>>> 
>>>> I find
>>>> 
>>>> [root at r440-17 ~]# egrep '^(apicid|proc)' /proc/cpuinfo  | tail -4
>>>> processor       : 22
>>>> apicid          : 22
>>>> processor       : 23
>>>> apicid          : 54
>>>> 
>>>> So apicid's are NOT going to work
>>>> 
>>>> # scontrol -d show job 1966817 | grep CPU_ID
>>>>     Nodes=r17 CPU_IDs=2 Mem=16384 GRES=
>>>> # cat /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/slurm/uid_3776056/job_1966817/cpuset.cpus
>>>> 4
>>>> 
>>>> If Slurm has '2' this should be the second core on the first socket so
>>>> should be '1' in cgroups, but it is 4 as we see above which is the fifth
>>>> core on the first socket.  So I guess I was wrong above.
>>>> 
>>>> But in /proc/cpuinfo the apicid for processor 4 is 2!!!  So is apicid
>>>> right after all?  Nope, on the same machine I have
>>>> 
>>>> # scontrol -d show job 1960208 | grep CPU_ID
>>>>     Nodes=r17 CPU_IDs=12-19 Mem=51200 GRES=
>>>> # cat /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/slurm/uid_5164679/job_1960208/cpuset.cpus
>>>> 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15
>>>> 
>>>> and in /proc/cpuinfo the apcid for processor 12 is 16
>>>> 
>>>> # scontrol -d show job 1967214 | grep CPU_ID
>>>>     Nodes=r17 CPU_IDs=8-11,20-23 Mem=51200 GRES=
>>>> # cat /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/slurm/uid_5164679/job_1967214/cpuset.cpus
>>>> 16-23
>>>> 
>>>> I am totally lost now. Seems totally random. SLURM devs?  Any insight?
>>>> 
>>>> -- Paul Raines
>>>> (http://secure-web.cisco.com/1fV8ajgaXNCaGTVPBmAhVRhk_lAbggJJxlkfKaTPxKwraiXNDFL8Fa_YXc4PH0ZxSP_aU5b9WWH4ds_d25tVNxYy_fxPvlt0lNnunFuneVQhgZjxQYnwtjHzFPP0hz2gaRgHh6zYz37fQzxkhLnkdrY_zEjnNiSCoIXIx4dOOceDVvgZ4-b-3zQMW9wOgsCLz7V4xs9fqysZ1dfuuN9mSWw7cAsm-WNWk0RWG9bDwrNm7YjdwJ5JZURQXckZ0qb4kZAnlJx5-Ihy_EqgkkoTMZeIP7rM_NAG0ejF3SI1yquf9Wi-cFgI6FHEz5ICB53zD/http%3A%2F%2Fhelp.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu)
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 1:33am, Marcus Wagner wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>  Hi Paul,
>>>>> 
>>>>>  sorry to say, but that has to be some coincidence on your system. I've
>>>>>  never seen Slurm reporting using corenumbers, which are higher than the
>>>>>  total number of cores.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  I have e.g. a intel Platinum 8160 here. 24 Cores per Socket, no
>>>>>  HyperThreading activated.
>>>>>  Yet here the last lines of /proc/cpuinfo:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  processor       : 43
>>>>>  apicid          : 114
>>>>>  processor       : 44
>>>>>  apicid          : 116
>>>>>  processor       : 45
>>>>>  apicid          : 118
>>>>>  processor       : 46
>>>>>  apicid          : 120
>>>>>  processor       : 47
>>>>>  apicid          : 122
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Never seen Slurm reporting corenumbers for a job > 96
>>>>>  Nonetheless, I agree, the cores reported by Slurm mostly have nothing
>>>>> to
>>>>>  do with the cores reported e.g. by cgroups.
>>>>>  Since Slurm creates the cgroups, I wonder, why they report some kind of
>>>>>  abstract coreid, because they should know, which cores are used, as
>>>>> they
>>>>>  create the cgroups for the jobs.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Best
>>>>>  Marcus
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Am 13.12.2022 um 16:39 schrieb Paul Raines:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Yes, looks like SLURM is using the apicid that is in /proc/cpuinfo
>>>>>>   The first 14 cpus in /proc/cpu (procs 0-13) have apicid
>>>>>>   0,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,20,22,24,26,28 in /proc/cpuinfo
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   So after setting CpuSpecList=0,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26
>>>>>>   in slurm.conf it appears to be doing what I want
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   $ echo $SLURM_JOB_ID
>>>>>>   9
>>>>>>   $ grep -i ^cpu /proc/self/status
>>>>>>   Cpus_allowed:   000f0000,000f0000
>>>>>>   Cpus_allowed_list:      16-19,48-51
>>>>>>   $ scontrol -d show job 9 | grep CPU_ID
>>>>>>         Nodes=larkin CPU_IDs=32-39 Mem=25600 GRES=
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   apcid=32 is processor=16 and apcid=33 is processor=48 in
>>>>>> /proc/cpuinfo
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Thanks
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   -- Paul Raines
>>>>>> (http://secure-web.cisco.com/1fV8ajgaXNCaGTVPBmAhVRhk_lAbggJJxlkfKaTPxKwraiXNDFL8Fa_YXc4PH0ZxSP_aU5b9WWH4ds_d25tVNxYy_fxPvlt0lNnunFuneVQhgZjxQYnwtjHzFPP0hz2gaRgHh6zYz37fQzxkhLnkdrY_zEjnNiSCoIXIx4dOOceDVvgZ4-b-3zQMW9wOgsCLz7V4xs9fqysZ1dfuuN9mSWw7cAsm-WNWk0RWG9bDwrNm7YjdwJ5JZURQXckZ0qb4kZAnlJx5-Ihy_EqgkkoTMZeIP7rM_NAG0ejF3SI1yquf9Wi-cFgI6FHEz5ICB53zD/http%3A%2F%2Fhelp.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 9:52am, Sean Maxwell wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>          External Email - Use Caution
>>>>>>>   In the slurm.conf manual they state the CpuSpecList ids are
>>>>>>> "abstract",
>>>>>>>   and
>>>>>>>   in the CPU management docs they enforce the notion that the abstract
>>>>>>>   Slurm
>>>>>>>   IDs are not related to the Linux hardware IDs, so that is probably
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>   source of the behavior. I unfortunately don't have more information.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 9:45 AM Paul Raines
>>>>>>>   <raines at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   Hmm.  Actually looks like confusion between CPU IDs on the system
>>>>>>>>   and what SLURM thinks the IDs are
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   # scontrol -d show job 8
>>>>>>>>   ...
>>>>>>>>         Nodes=foobar CPU_IDs=14-21 Mem=25600 GRES=
>>>>>>>>   ...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   # cat
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> /sys/fs/cgroup/system.slice/slurmstepd.scope/job_8/cpuset.cpus.effective
>>>>>>>>   7-10,39-42
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   -- Paul Raines
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> (http://secure-web.cisco.com/1w33sdTB1gUzmmNOl1cd8t7VHLUOemWW6ExRIq2AHSLm0BwRxhnfCCHDdln0LWn7IZ3IUYdxeX2HzyDj7CeKHq7B1H5ek2tow-D_4Q81mK8_x_AKf6cHYOSqHSBelLikTijDZJGsJYKSleSUlZMG1mqkU4e4TirhUu0qTLKUcvqLxsvi1WCbBbyUaDUxd-c7kE2_v4XzvhBtdEqrkKAWOQF2WoJwhmTJlMhanBk-PdjHDsuDcdOgfHrmIAiRC-T8hB094Y1WvEuOjL4o2Kbx28qp4eUSPu8jSOxPEKoWsHpSDE7fWyjrlcVAsEyOpPgp4/http%3A%2F%2Fhelp.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 9:40am, Paul Raines wrote:
>>>>>>>> > >    Oh but that does explain the CfgTRES=cpu=14.  With the > > CpuSpecList
>>>>>>>> >    below and SlurmdOffSpec I do get CfgTRES=cpu=50 so that makes > sense.
>>>>>>>> > >    The issue remains that thought the number of cpus in > > CpuSpecList
>>>>>>>> >    is taken into account, the exact IDs seem to be ignored.
>>>>>>>> > > >    -- Paul Raines >   > > > (http://secure-web.cisco.com/1w33sdTB1gUzmmNOl1cd8t7VHLUOemWW6ExRIq2AHSLm0BwRxhnfCCHDdln0LWn7IZ3IUYdxeX2HzyDj7CeKHq7B1H5ek2tow-D_4Q81mK8_x_AKf6cHYOSqHSBelLikTijDZJGsJYKSleSUlZMG1mqkU4e4TirhUu0qTLKUcvqLxsvi1WCbBbyUaDUxd-c7kE2_v4XzvhBtdEqrkKAWOQF2WoJwhmTJlMhanBk-PdjHDsuDcdOgfHrmIAiRC-T8hB094Y1WvEuOjL4o2Kbx28qp4eUSPu8jSOxPEKoWsHpSDE7fWyjrlcVAsEyOpPgp4/http%3A%2F%2Fhelp.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu)
>>>>>>>> > > > >    On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 9:34am, Paul Raines wrote:
>>>>>>>> > >> >>     I have tried it both ways with the same result.  The > >> >> assigned CPUs
>>>>>>>> >>     will be both in and out of the range given to CpuSpecList
>>>>>>>> >> >>     I tried setting using commas instead of ranges so used
>>>>>>>> >> >>     CpuSpecList=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13
>>>>>>>> >> >>     But still does not work
>>>>>>>> >> >>     $ srun -p basic -N 1 --ntasks-per-node=1 --mem=25G \
>>>>>>>> >>     --time=10:00:00 --cpus-per-task=8 --pty /bin/bash
>>>>>>>> >>     $ grep -i ^cpu /proc/self/status
>>>>>>>> >>     Cpus_allowed:   00000780,00000780
>>>>>>>> >>     Cpus_allowed_list:      7-10,39-42
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>     -- Paul Raines >>  >> >> >> (http://secure-web.cisco.com/1w33sdTB1gUzmmNOl1cd8t7VHLUOemWW6ExRIq2AHSLm0BwRxhnfCCHDdln0LWn7IZ3IUYdxeX2HzyDj7CeKHq7B1H5ek2tow-D_4Q81mK8_x_AKf6cHYOSqHSBelLikTijDZJGsJYKSleSUlZMG1mqkU4e4TirhUu0qTLKUcvqLxsvi1WCbBbyUaDUxd-c7kE2_v4XzvhBtdEqrkKAWOQF2WoJwhmTJlMhanBk-PdjHDsuDcdOgfHrmIAiRC-T8hB094Y1WvEuOjL4o2Kbx28qp4eUSPu8jSOxPEKoWsHpSDE7fWyjrlcVAsEyOpPgp4/http%3A%2F%2Fhelp.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu)
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>     On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 10:21am, Sean Maxwell wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >>>      Hi Paul,
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>      Nodename=foobar \
>>>>>>>> >>>>         CPUs=64 Boards=1 SocketsPerBoard=2 CoresPerSocket=16
>>>>>>>> >>>>         ThreadsPerCore=2
>>>>>>>> >>>>         \
>>>>>>>> >>>>         RealMemory=256312 MemSpecLimit=32768 CpuSpecList=14-63 \
>>>>>>>> >>>>         TmpDisk=6000000 Gres=gpu:nvidia_rtx_a6000:1
>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>      The slurm.conf also has:
>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>      ProctrackType=proctrack/cgroup
>>>>>>>> >>>>      TaskPlugin=task/affinity,task/cgroup
>>>>>>>> >>>>      TaskPluginParam=Cores,*SlurmdOf**fSpec*,Verbose
>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>      Doesn't setting SlurmdOffSpec tell Slurmd that is >>>> >>> >>> should NOT use >>>  the
>>>>>>>> >>>      CPUs
>>>>>>>> >>>      in the spec list? (
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1V9Fskh4lCAx_XrdlCr8o1EtnePELf-1YK4TerT47ktLxy3fO9FaIpaGXVA8ODhMAdhmXSqToQstwAilA71r7z1Q4jDqPSKEsJQNUhJYYRtxFnZIO49QxsYrVo9c3ExH89cIk_t7H5dtGEjpme2LFKm23Z52yK-xZ3fEl_LyK61uCzkas6GKykzPCPyoNXaFgs32Ct2tDIVL8vI6JW1_-1uQ9gUyWmm24xJoBxLEui7tSTVwMtiVRu8C7pU1nJ8qr6ghBlxrqx-wQiRP4XBCjhPARHa2KBqkUogjEVRAe3WdAbbYBxtXeVsWjqNGmjSVA/https%3A%2F%2Fslurm.schedmd.com%2Fslurm.conf.html%23OPT_SlurmdOffSpec)
>>>>>>>> >>>      In this case, I believe it uses what is left, which is the >>> 0-13. >>>  We
>>>>>>>>   are
>>>>>>>> >>>      just starting to work on this ourselves, and were looking at >>> >>>  this
>>>>>>>> >>>      setting.
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>      Best,
>>>>>>>> >>> >>>      -Sean
>>>>>>>> >>> >> >
>>>>>>>>   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://secure-web.cisco.com/11OmVChs0jRoe-4AH2iRxvEdMN0dxZcFsunG07PJ0sXxdW7tj7-BUiDwEEi3gkqOms_qFRdQbCLHJQW0jD6cG8-griFmte8mXIoPZSDzIE8dHcew9yMCpQxJnYVVs8mK5aB-9o4ospPlPqxo3FA0LN8gpJSrsBKOxr5m7T3Jd7FY04zJnehrYc0FQwfWAPJx523fZTqVTTmwZgdEFZAQtURZ8hPxlohSzsh7d13L7byOVUmxAxzolzDTvRSH9l1gjMm-RjtdW95eYkgPlRoM3nJ0WCledYAp5NA3kUGNhsc5uNDp3lWIzS7gZGIMfTyg9/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.massgeneralbrigham.org%2Fcomplianceline
>>>>>>>>   <
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/11OmVChs0jRoe-4AH2iRxvEdMN0dxZcFsunG07PJ0sXxdW7tj7-BUiDwEEi3gkqOms_qFRdQbCLHJQW0jD6cG8-griFmte8mXIoPZSDzIE8dHcew9yMCpQxJnYVVs8mK5aB-9o4ospPlPqxo3FA0LN8gpJSrsBKOxr5m7T3Jd7FY04zJnehrYc0FQwfWAPJx523fZTqVTTmwZgdEFZAQtURZ8hPxlohSzsh7d13L7byOVUmxAxzolzDTvRSH9l1gjMm-RjtdW95eYkgPlRoM3nJ0WCledYAp5NA3kUGNhsc5uNDp3lWIzS7gZGIMfTyg9/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.massgeneralbrigham.org%2Fcomplianceline>
>>>>>>>>   .
>>>>>>>>   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.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   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://secure-web.cisco.com/1PmxwaOlMXSsSWGbWWYKPBpt4ErgJCfQ6yIrz0i6wWWrPX1wiWCiBfeZ2xu-pFqQOqhme1wR4J-sGQNCjJYx8LQrRYLlgTpQZSpSKneskIT28Lv2VyVO25H03n8yo9waPPhoudMF-cow9scYJMVCkyJnSN_R1yg51kb6zS1-MjPgru7ZS0BZTzlPeX-7KoHpQahSlFu0vjOWUq4nqdEVwh_g44-YCL1zmSrzRTkg96oS8Bm8Bwo3jZ7AOml-adns9Fr6Q9QVg31f2N9NsGviytLoSWv8s8wFQCwlgVNfPTTwKZxjkIxeWK8HBmc4vgE9D/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.massgeneralbrigham.org%2Fcomplianceline
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1PmxwaOlMXSsSWGbWWYKPBpt4ErgJCfQ6yIrz0i6wWWrPX1wiWCiBfeZ2xu-pFqQOqhme1wR4J-sGQNCjJYx8LQrRYLlgTpQZSpSKneskIT28Lv2VyVO25H03n8yo9waPPhoudMF-cow9scYJMVCkyJnSN_R1yg51kb6zS1-MjPgru7ZS0BZTzlPeX-7KoHpQahSlFu0vjOWUq4nqdEVwh_g44-YCL1zmSrzRTkg96oS8Bm8Bwo3jZ7AOml-adns9Fr6Q9QVg31f2N9NsGviytLoSWv8s8wFQCwlgVNfPTTwKZxjkIxeWK8HBmc4vgE9D/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.massgeneralbrigham.org%2Fcomplianceline>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>   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.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  --
>>>>>  Dipl.-Inf. Marcus Wagner
>>>>> 
>>>>>  IT Center
>>>>>  Gruppe: Server, Storage, HPC
>>>>>  Abteilung: Systeme und Betrieb
>>>>>  RWTH Aachen University
>>>>>  Seffenter Weg 23
>>>>>  52074 Aachen
>>>>>  Tel: +49 241 80-24383
>>>>>  Fax: +49 241 80-624383
>>>>>  wagner at itc.rwth-aachen.de
>>>>>  http://secure-web.cisco.com/1B5jcsbcQ02Q4GJn4-URoKY8HqxxzgGBFYqjthyPxPxdXzmf7UHSU6_5MS9jp4IyQqV_2eP2GOlJADbOsU1JCQektcVysY0wFUzTT6iJXeukZSEwwsS1a9fEa5A5A9V3YXL2ew7-1i2_EbER_b0LzSNZxFTuZZhFFec7CwG5_VBxAPznWJN6V5UeiPae_PAclOALCf9dVkQKsja5wf6gn9opTN6LBBqXFodRzRdf00Tohpr3X0gVJqiS0wkdhNsDi4lAgnTIPn712RdlPYwpWdc_wx4lZyn6UyuSWitp0muk8aauPf_DTotbHJ56Uc8V3/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.itc.rwth-aachen.de
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Social Media Kanäle des IT Centers:
>>>>>  https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ez5FTX8pxpjTtZWBVFVRAWafNU7u3KXdZlwv16JCbfnwcYPDxCftSdbp14fmyndNHEYU-Pso33tUA8Vkj4QgeCgq8gbGJkHfuV-kJSqb1Rmg9b_j6fQ2GaXGDs-8zlteOuZi5bK3ePaj36iUxmVD-IfIv9AWM_39cZ6ZA9D2PjfqPV8lgFi5VqOR7fuj5hCH2Sp9Xv0nY_w0RIaLDlKh16HPvmGRZWg5EWNnEkAmgeVhGtDasU77Y292iq3wLJGZ0xkJifdzbOVEHfBG6X9Y98oDRNO_qFPiAsaOcdpk_eCxFl3L2KijPbh5b99AGtiC/https%3A%2F%2Fblog.rwth-aachen.de%2Fitc%2F
>>>>>  https://secure-web.cisco.com/1CW5aaHqTou4LGMrEyU-6QwYallSKgvhhp71rescRZCgVtIRexR6DcQS5NXxhMghQcwnM07RraLcLU2RufHZCj983olA9VGoI063ZUppLuV3aWjKmTYFZglCggrjb_5yB1GdYmb0sMtxBL8JBf_FFuTnOh4JYwUpuopXyH5I1aHPI3Ywr0zYhWCGA3EkxAcpBCpV738s8tpfpMXVOuDJzZfUapgRTtDQf7bv7NE00-10grSjQOCv8QZg22L-c_6O37DhBIQ42goSurJUehTubM5f7acoG6XONaiKufNWhp48f31SeQ6nsxOMmvm_pOVfa/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fitcenterrwth
>>>>>  https://secure-web.cisco.com/1s2yL6gEKoiHrJk0M0CRf9vptCb77ZmQoicVknhVL3O-3EEDFPOdYYlSq_K6pvUubzaOLiKIe9-OA-6xT9i-HPYamEdbBDJNCOGF8Tgr3eZqpDe7GhbdLnh8j1K9SuzIbG-2tRP5E1QgNx4m2zfQBWkK5Gu6vTkQbNDQQSeDZxVHfKYdbYsil21qLauAHloys7KGs7gqqcKnBPN6RZCRC-x5X506txXjkGcqm6xU6U6J85FMIFGhdTukCDbJtZEJIdgZgHDBaIvfDRfk1WgMUlFvTOe7eEpzLkBHBl9j-w4SfNjtdVfN7dUx9w3B-bGtg/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Fitcenterrwth
>>>>>  https://secure-web.cisco.com/1hzaxwdTNMmSQsMHSOQZXdDlQcfiJ7_MPscUdPKHWZsfpNEsZQHYao5lDIqJajwoH1Vs_U2sH5N-sNQDGOcjzeUVwnjbrPtILmKLpBYi8BMPGePr7LiGM5Ehn_H_e8UvB38Sp-SbZcOOw_4421AARSlSiZibRKYWvIGnEevq8PKSmAIRshzZ1KX63V32VRGhJD6AQLhWUYIVIAlKAaZvZ_kqR-KeriN2cgZgM24guNTJcFw9eKTUleKB10kVs5EU-eh-CT5Yai-M4WsclwyrJUIQ9SzZgxrwWsIuOTlXtuf0szkzHxEXjxRTmjkn4xqi9/https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FITCenterRWTH
>>>>>  https://secure-web.cisco.com/1uxcAJMPXZb2B1FJm65QOa0OEFNrH0W_Vo4oDBHKlvJCgxIfjgHhyip1Qlqap_05F4BQzdiRMuaxbQJS1vikwziB80jfQfmq-kgCkBml0pN80U8YzpZCpYSeAc0eoOoHN0RzutppHGkUP2Fzzlgk22qszo5PQZWJxjXW8J7X1FozVJEiYYs38gCHTyoALjPnoGdadThFVBSufbwVsqj2JG29I3M2vSE-IMPidEONSt6klggc-nGCdN-M_BwbmmVf8INbVah-UmPWh7B9UFpd13QVKpuDe_LqBvBTHuqLOxGjj0KVrTn6HCF58c_VioJkx/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fchannel%2FUCKKDJJukeRwO0LP-ac8x8rQ
>>>> 
>>> 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://secure-web.cisco.com/1PmxwaOlMXSsSWGbWWYKPBpt4ErgJCfQ6yIrz0i6wWWrPX1wiWCiBfeZ2xu-pFqQOqhme1wR4J-sGQNCjJYx8LQrRYLlgTpQZSpSKneskIT28Lv2VyVO25H03n8yo9waPPhoudMF-cow9scYJMVCkyJnSN_R1yg51kb6zS1-MjPgru7ZS0BZTzlPeX-7KoHpQahSlFu0vjOWUq4nqdEVwh_g44-YCL1zmSrzRTkg96oS8Bm8Bwo3jZ7AOml-adns9Fr6Q9QVg31f2N9NsGviytLoSWv8s8wFQCwlgVNfPTTwKZxjkIxeWK8HBmc4vgE9D/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.massgeneralbrigham.org%2Fcomplianceline
>>> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1PmxwaOlMXSsSWGbWWYKPBpt4ErgJCfQ6yIrz0i6wWWrPX1wiWCiBfeZ2xu-pFqQOqhme1wR4J-sGQNCjJYx8LQrRYLlgTpQZSpSKneskIT28Lv2VyVO25H03n8yo9waPPhoudMF-cow9scYJMVCkyJnSN_R1yg51kb6zS1-MjPgru7ZS0BZTzlPeX-7KoHpQahSlFu0vjOWUq4nqdEVwh_g44-YCL1zmSrzRTkg96oS8Bm8Bwo3jZ7AOml-adns9Fr6Q9QVg31f2N9NsGviytLoSWv8s8wFQCwlgVNfPTTwKZxjkIxeWK8HBmc4vgE9D/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.massgeneralbrigham.org%2Fcomplianceline>
>>> .
>>> 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.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dipl.-Inf. Marcus Wagner
>> 
>> IT Center
>> Gruppe: Server, Storage, HPC
>> Abteilung: Systeme und Betrieb
>> RWTH Aachen University
>> Seffenter Weg 23
>> 52074 Aachen
>> Tel: +49 241 80-24383
>> Fax: +49 241 80-624383
>> wagner at itc.rwth-aachen.de
>> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1B5jcsbcQ02Q4GJn4-URoKY8HqxxzgGBFYqjthyPxPxdXzmf7UHSU6_5MS9jp4IyQqV_2eP2GOlJADbOsU1JCQektcVysY0wFUzTT6iJXeukZSEwwsS1a9fEa5A5A9V3YXL2ew7-1i2_EbER_b0LzSNZxFTuZZhFFec7CwG5_VBxAPznWJN6V5UeiPae_PAclOALCf9dVkQKsja5wf6gn9opTN6LBBqXFodRzRdf00Tohpr3X0gVJqiS0wkdhNsDi4lAgnTIPn712RdlPYwpWdc_wx4lZyn6UyuSWitp0muk8aauPf_DTotbHJ56Uc8V3/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.itc.rwth-aachen.de
>> 
>> Social Media Kanäle des IT Centers:
>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ez5FTX8pxpjTtZWBVFVRAWafNU7u3KXdZlwv16JCbfnwcYPDxCftSdbp14fmyndNHEYU-Pso33tUA8Vkj4QgeCgq8gbGJkHfuV-kJSqb1Rmg9b_j6fQ2GaXGDs-8zlteOuZi5bK3ePaj36iUxmVD-IfIv9AWM_39cZ6ZA9D2PjfqPV8lgFi5VqOR7fuj5hCH2Sp9Xv0nY_w0RIaLDlKh16HPvmGRZWg5EWNnEkAmgeVhGtDasU77Y292iq3wLJGZ0xkJifdzbOVEHfBG6X9Y98oDRNO_qFPiAsaOcdpk_eCxFl3L2KijPbh5b99AGtiC/https%3A%2F%2Fblog.rwth-aachen.de%2Fitc%2F
>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1CW5aaHqTou4LGMrEyU-6QwYallSKgvhhp71rescRZCgVtIRexR6DcQS5NXxhMghQcwnM07RraLcLU2RufHZCj983olA9VGoI063ZUppLuV3aWjKmTYFZglCggrjb_5yB1GdYmb0sMtxBL8JBf_FFuTnOh4JYwUpuopXyH5I1aHPI3Ywr0zYhWCGA3EkxAcpBCpV738s8tpfpMXVOuDJzZfUapgRTtDQf7bv7NE00-10grSjQOCv8QZg22L-c_6O37DhBIQ42goSurJUehTubM5f7acoG6XONaiKufNWhp48f31SeQ6nsxOMmvm_pOVfa/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fitcenterrwth
>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1s2yL6gEKoiHrJk0M0CRf9vptCb77ZmQoicVknhVL3O-3EEDFPOdYYlSq_K6pvUubzaOLiKIe9-OA-6xT9i-HPYamEdbBDJNCOGF8Tgr3eZqpDe7GhbdLnh8j1K9SuzIbG-2tRP5E1QgNx4m2zfQBWkK5Gu6vTkQbNDQQSeDZxVHfKYdbYsil21qLauAHloys7KGs7gqqcKnBPN6RZCRC-x5X506txXjkGcqm6xU6U6J85FMIFGhdTukCDbJtZEJIdgZgHDBaIvfDRfk1WgMUlFvTOe7eEpzLkBHBl9j-w4SfNjtdVfN7dUx9w3B-bGtg/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Fitcenterrwth
>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1hzaxwdTNMmSQsMHSOQZXdDlQcfiJ7_MPscUdPKHWZsfpNEsZQHYao5lDIqJajwoH1Vs_U2sH5N-sNQDGOcjzeUVwnjbrPtILmKLpBYi8BMPGePr7LiGM5Ehn_H_e8UvB38Sp-SbZcOOw_4421AARSlSiZibRKYWvIGnEevq8PKSmAIRshzZ1KX63V32VRGhJD6AQLhWUYIVIAlKAaZvZ_kqR-KeriN2cgZgM24guNTJcFw9eKTUleKB10kVs5EU-eh-CT5Yai-M4WsclwyrJUIQ9SzZgxrwWsIuOTlXtuf0szkzHxEXjxRTmjkn4xqi9/https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FITCenterRWTH
>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1uxcAJMPXZb2B1FJm65QOa0OEFNrH0W_Vo4oDBHKlvJCgxIfjgHhyip1Qlqap_05F4BQzdiRMuaxbQJS1vikwziB80jfQfmq-kgCkBml0pN80U8YzpZCpYSeAc0eoOoHN0RzutppHGkUP2Fzzlgk22qszo5PQZWJxjXW8J7X1FozVJEiYYs38gCHTyoALjPnoGdadThFVBSufbwVsqj2JG29I3M2vSE-IMPidEONSt6klggc-nGCdN-M_BwbmmVf8INbVah-UmPWh7B9UFpd13QVKpuDe_LqBvBTHuqLOxGjj0KVrTn6HCF58c_VioJkx/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fchannel%2FUCKKDJJukeRwO0LP-ac8x8rQ
>> 
>> 
> 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. 


More information about the slurm-users mailing list