[slurm-users] enabling job script archival

Ryan Novosielski novosirj at rutgers.edu
Thu Sep 28 17:57:59 UTC 2023

Sorry for the duplicate e-mail in a short time: do you know (or anyone) when the hashing was added? Was planning to enable this on 21.08, but we then had to delay our upgrade to it. I’m assuming later than that, as I believe that’s when the feature was added.

On Sep 28, 2023, at 13:55, Ryan Novosielski <novosirj at rutgers.edu> wrote:

Thank you; we’ll put in a feature request for improvements in that area, and also thanks for the warning? I thought of that in passing, but the real world experience is really useful. I could easily see wanting that stuff to be retained less often than the main records, which is what I’d ask for.

I assume that archiving, in general, would also remove this stuff, since old jobs themselves will be removed?

|| \\UTGERS,     |---------------------------*O*---------------------------
||_// the State  |         Ryan Novosielski - novosirj at rutgers.edu
|| \\ University | Sr. Technologist - 973/972.0922 (2x0922) ~*~ RBHS Campus
||  \\    of NJ  | Office of Advanced Research Computing - MSB A555B, Newark

On Sep 28, 2023, at 13:48, Paul Edmon <pedmon at cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:

Slurm should take care of it when you add it.

So far as horror stories, under previous versions our database size ballooned to be so massive that it actually prevented us from upgrading and we had to drop the columns containing the job_script and job_env.  This was back before slurm started hashing the scripts so that it would only store one copy of duplicate scripts.  After this point we found that the job_script database stayed at a fairly reasonable size as most users use functionally the same script each time. However the job_env continued to grow like crazy as there are variables in our environment that change fairly consistently depending on where the user is. Thus job_envs ended up being too massive to keep around and so we had to drop them. Frankly we never really used them for debugging. The job_scripts though are super useful and not that much overhead.

In summary my recommendation is to only store job_scripts. job_envs add too much storage for little gain, unless your job_envs are basically the same for each user in each location.

Also it should be noted that there is no way to prune out job_scripts or job_envs right now. So the only way to get rid of them if they get large is to 0 out the column in the table. You can ask SchedMD for the mysql command to do this as we had to do it here to our job_envs.

-Paul Edmon-

On 9/28/2023 1:40 PM, Davide DelVento wrote:
In my current slurm installation, (recently upgraded to slurm v23.02.3), I only have


I now intend to add both


leaving the default 4MB value for max_script_size

Do I need to do anything on the DB myself, or will slurm take care of the additional tables if needed?

Any comments/suggestions/gotcha/pitfalls/horror_stories to share? I know about the additional diskspace and potentially load needed, and with our resources and typical workload I should be okay with that.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.schedmd.com/pipermail/slurm-users/attachments/20230928/eedb5072/attachment.htm>

More information about the slurm-users mailing list