[slurm-users] Slurm powersave
Ole Holm Nielsen
Ole.H.Nielsen at fysik.dtu.dk
Thu Oct 5 09:22:32 UTC 2023
Hi Davide,
On 10/4/23 23:03, Davide DelVento wrote:
> I'm experimenting with slurm powersave and I have several questions. I'm
> following the guidance from https://slurm.schedmd.com/power_save.html
> <https://slurm.schedmd.com/power_save.html> and the great presentation
> from our own https://slurm.schedmd.com/SLUG23/DTU-SLUG23.pdf
> <https://slurm.schedmd.com/SLUG23/DTU-SLUG23.pdf>
I presented that talk at SLUG'23 :-)
> I am running slurm 23.02.3
>
> 1) I'm not sure I fully understand ReconfigFlags=KeepPowerSaveSettings
> The documentations ways that if set, an "scontrol reconfig" command will
> preserve the current state of SuspendExcNodes, SuspendExcParts and
> SuspendExcStates. Why would one *NOT* want to preserve that? What would
> happen if one does not (or does) have this setting? For now I'm using it,
> assuming that it means "if I run scontrol reconfig" don't shut off nodes
> that are up because I said so that they should be up in slurm.conf with
> those three options" --- but I am not clear if that is really what it says.
As I understand it, the ReconfigFlags means that if you updated some
settings using scontrol, they will be lost when slurmctld is reconfigured,
and the settings from slurm.conf will be used in stead.
> 2) the PDF above says that the problem with nodes in down and drained
> state is solved in 23.02 but that does not appear to be the case. Before
> running my experiment, I had
>
> $ sinfo -R
> REASON USER TIMESTAMP NODELIST
> Not responding root 2023-09-13T13:14:50 node31
> ECC memory errors root 2023-08-26T07:21:04 node27
>
> and after it became
>
> $ sinfo -R
> REASON USER TIMESTAMP NODELIST
> Not responding root 2023-09-13T13:14:50 node31
> none Unknown Unknown node27
Please use "sinfo -lR" so that we can see the node STATE.
> And that despite having excluded drain'ed nodes as below:
>
> --- a/slurm/slurm.conf
> +++ b/slurm/slurm.conf
> @@ -140,12 +140,15 @@ SlurmdLogFile=/var/log/slurm/slurmd.log
> #
> #
> # POWER SAVE SUPPORT FOR IDLE NODES (optional)
> +SuspendProgram=/opt/slurm/poweroff
> +ResumeProgram=/opt/slurm/poweron
> +SuspendTimeout=120
> +ResumeTimeout=240
> #ResumeRate=
> +SuspendExcNodes=node[13-32]:2
> +SuspendExcStates=down,drain,fail,maint,not_responding,reserved
> +BatchStartTimeout=60
> +ReconfigFlags=KeepPowerSaveSettings # not sure if needed: preserve
> current status when running "scontrol reconfig"
> -PartitionName=compute512 Default=False Nodes=node[13-32] State=UP
> DefMemPerCPU=9196
> +PartitionName=compute512 Default=False Nodes=node[13-32] State=UP
> DefMemPerCPU=9196 SuspendTime=600
>
> so probably that's not solved? Anyway, that's a nuisance, not a deal breaker
With my 23.02.5 the SuspendExcStates is working as documented :-)
> 3) The whole thing does not appear to be working as I intended. My
> understanding of the "exclude node" above should have meant that slurm
> should never attempt to shut off more than all idle nodes in that
> partition minus 2. Instead it shut them off all of them, and then tried to
> turn them back on:
>
> $ sinfo | grep 512
> compute512 up infinite 1 alloc# node15
> compute512 up infinite 2 idle# node[14,32]
> compute512 up infinite 3 down~ node[16-17,31]
> compute512 up infinite 1 drain~ node27
> compute512 up infinite 12 idle~ node[18-26,28-30]
> compute512 up infinite 1 alloc node13
I agree that 2 nodes from node[13-32] shouldn't be suspended, according to
SuspendExcNodes in the slurm.conf manual. I haven't tested this feature.
> But again this is a minor nuisance which I can live with (especially if it
> happens only when I "flip the switch"), and I'm mentioning only in case
> it's a symptom of something else I'm doing wrong. I did try to use both
> the SuspendExcNodes=node[13-32]:2 syntax as it seem more reasonable to me
> (compared to the rest of the file, e.g. partitions definition) and the
> SuspendExcNodes=node[13\-32]:2 as suggested in the slurm powersave
> documentation. Behavior, exactly identical
>
> 4) Most importantly from the output above you may have noticed two nodes
> (actually three by the time I ran the command below) that slurm deemed down
>
> $ sinfo -R
> REASON USER TIMESTAMP NODELIST
> Not responding root 2023-09-13T13:14:50 node31
> reboot timed out slurm 2023-10-04T14:51:28 node14
> reboot timed out slurm 2023-10-04T14:52:28 node15
> reboot timed out slurm 2023-10-04T14:49:58 node32
> none Unknown Unknown node27
>
> This can't be the case, the nodes are fine, and cannot have timed out
> while "rebooting", because for now my poweroff and poweron script are
> identical and literally a simple one-liner bash script doing almost
> nothing and the log file is populated correctly as I would expect
>
> echo "Pretending to $0 the following node(s): $1" >> $log_file 2>&1
>
> So I can confirm slurm invoked the script, but then waited for something
> (what? starting slurmd?) which failed to occur and marked the node down.
> When I removed the suspend time from the partition to end the experiment,
> the other nodes went "magically" in production , without slurm calling my
> poweron script. Of course the nodes were never powered off, but slurm
> thought they were, so why it did not have the problem it id with the node
> which instead intentionally tried to power on?
IMHO, "pretending" to power down nodes defies the logic of the Slurm
power_save plugin. Slurmctld expects suspended nodes to *really* power
down (slurmd is stopped). When slurmctld resumes a suspended node, it
expects slurmd to start up when the node is powered on. There is a
ResumeTimeout parameter which I've set to about 15-30 minutes in case of
delays due to BIOS updates and the like - the default of 60 seconds is WAY
too small!
Have you tried to experiment with the IPMI based power down/up method
explained in the above presentation? I'd appreciate independent testing
of my scripts in
https://github.com/OleHolmNielsen/Slurm_tools/tree/master/power_save :-)
Best regards,
Ole
More information about the slurm-users
mailing list