Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • Interactive: The ability to assign all or part of a node to a user with shell level access (nodescheduler, qsub -I, etc),  minimal granularity is per NUMA node, finer would be useful.

    • What is it that we like about nodescheduler over something like qsub -I?
      • It's not tied to any tty so a user can login multiple times from multiple places to their reserved node without requiring screen or tmux or VNC.
      • Its creation is asynchronous.  If the cluster is full you don't wait around for your reservation to start, you get an email message when it is ready.
      • It's time limited (e.g. two weeks).  We might be able to do the same with a queue/partition setting but could we then extend that reservation?
      • We get to define the shape of a reservation (whole node, NUMA node, etc).  If we just let people use qsub -I they could reserve all sorts of sizes which may be less efficient.  Then again it may be more efficient.  But either way it is simpler for our users.
    • HTCondor
      • HTCondor doesn't have queues or partitions like Torque/Moab or Slurm but there are still ways to do what we need.
      • Constraints and/or seperate pools are good options.
      • I don't know how to simulate the vlass/vlasstest queues.  Perhaps by the time we move to HTCondor we won't need vlasstest anymore.
  • Access: Would like to prevent users from being able to login to nodes unless they have a proper reservation.

    • Slurm has a pam_slurm.so module similar to pam_pbssimpleauth.so.

...