[slurm-users] Response to Rémi Palancher about Configuring slurm.conf and using subpartitions

Rémi Palancher remi at rackslab.io
Thu Oct 5 08:06:00 UTC 2023

------- Original Message -------
Le mercredi 4 octobre 2023 à 17:39, Kratz, Zach <ZKratz at clarku.edu> a écrit :

> Thank you for your response,
> Just to clarify,
> We do specify the node weight in the node setting lines, I was just wondering if there was a way to be more detailed in our weight assignments.
> Here is our configuration right now:
> Notice the weights are set under compute nodes, and under interactive sessions is where it selects from Nodes=node[1-24] to choose what node will complete the interactive job. 

I don't see anything wrong with your configuration and to be honest I can't figure out what would prevent Weight to operate as expected in this case. I was a bit dubious about the Priority on the partition because it is not documented (as far as I looked for) but it seems it sets both PriorityJobFactor and PriorityTier[2] so it shouldn't bother though.

Maybe you could try the manpage proposal for the Weight option[1]?

> If you absolutely want to minimize the number of higher weight nodes allocated to a job (at a cost of higher scheduling overhead), give each node a distinct Weight value and they will be added to the pool of nodes being considered for scheduling individually. 

[1] https://github.com/SchedMD/slurm/blob/10b6d5122b77eae417546d5263757d0ed1b2fd31/src/common/read_config.c#L1667
[2] https://slurm.schedmd.com/slurm.conf.html#OPT_Weight
Rémi Palancher
Rackslab: Open Source Solutions for HPC Operations

More information about the slurm-users mailing list