[slurm-users] Fairshare: Penalising unused memory rather than used memory?

[Williams, Gareth (IM&T, Black Mountain)]

Hi Loris, You could add them to a naughty list (please use a better term...) and apply a fixed commensurate priority penalty.  That is simple (and can apply to a range of unpreferred behaviour) and provides a clear motivation to change. Could be done with QOS unless you already use that in a conflicting way.

Gareth

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: slurm-users <slurm-users-bounces at lists.schedmd.com> on behalf of Loris Bennett <loris.bennett at fu-berlin.de>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 5:26:38 PM
To: Slurm Users Mailing List <slurm-users at lists.schedmd.com>
Subject: [slurm-users] Fairshare: Penalising unused memory rather than used memory?

Hi,

We have an increasing number of users who are unable (or unwilling) to
estimate their memory requirements accurately.  We include memory in our
calculation of fairshare usage and thus penalise everyone who requests
large amounts of memory, whether it is needed or not.

Therefore I would be interested in knowing whether one can take into
account the *requested but unused memory* when calculating usage.  Is
this possible?

Cheers,

Loris

--
Dr. Loris Bennett (Herr/Mr)
ZEDAT, Freie Universität Berlin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.schedmd.com/pipermail/slurm-users/attachments/20231011/8086a2c1/attachment.htm>