[slurm-users] Weirdness with partitions
drhey at umich.edu
Thu Sep 21 13:46:39 UTC 2023
Slurm is working as it should. From your own examples you proved that; by
not submitting to b4 the job works. However, looking at man sbatch:
Request a specific partition for the resource allocation.
If not specified, the default behavior is to allow the slurm controller to
the default partition as designated by the system
administrator. If the job can use more than one partition, specify their
names in a comma
separate list and the one offering earliest initiation will
be used with no regard given to the partition name ordering (although
ority partitions will be considered first). When the job is
initiated, the name of the partition used will be placed first in the job
In your example, the job can NOT use more than one partition (given the
restrictions defined on the partition itself precluding certain accounts
from using it). This, to me, seems either like a user education issue (i.e.
don't have them submit to every partition), or you can try the job submit
lua route - or perhaps the hidden partition route (which I've not tested).
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:18 AM Diego Zuccato <diego.zuccato at unibo.it>
> Uh? It's not a problem if other users see there are jobs in the
> partition (IIUC it's what 'hidden' is for), even if they can't use it.
> The problem is that if it's included in --partition it prevents jobs
> from being queued!
> Nothing in the documentation about --partition made me think that
> forbidding access to one partition would make a job unqueueable...
> Il 21/09/2023 14:41, David ha scritto:
> > I would think that slurm would only filter it out, potentially, if the
> > partition in question (b4) was marked as "hidden" and only accessible by
> > the correct account.
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 3:11 AM Diego Zuccato <diego.zuccato at unibo.it
> > <mailto:diego.zuccato at unibo.it>> wrote:
> > Hello all.
> > We have one partition (b4) that's reserved for an account while the
> > others are "free for all".
> > The problem is that
> > sbatch --partition=b1,b2,b3,b4,b5 test.sh
> > fails with
> > sbatch: error: Batch job submission failed: Invalid account or
> > account/partition combination specified
> > while
> > sbatch --partition=b1,b2,b3,b5 test.sh
> > succeeds.
> > Shouldn't Slurm (22.05.6) just "filter out" the inaccessible
> > considering only the others?
> > Just like what it does if I'm requesting more cores than available
> on a
> > node.
> > I'd really like to avoid having to replicate scheduler logic in
> > job_submit.lua... :)
> > --
> > Diego Zuccato
> > DIFA - Dip. di Fisica e Astronomia
> > Servizi Informatici
> > Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna
> > V.le Berti-Pichat 6/2 - 40127 Bologna - Italy
> > tel.: +39 051 20 95786
> > --
> > David Rhey
> > ---------------
> > Advanced Research Computing
> > University of Michigan
> Diego Zuccato
> DIFA - Dip. di Fisica e Astronomia
> Servizi Informatici
> Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna
> V.le Berti-Pichat 6/2 - 40127 Bologna - Italy
> tel.: +39 051 20 95786
Advanced Research Computing
University of Michigan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the slurm-users