CMS for example has very specific requirements (for Tier2s) how much
fairshare (within the CMS fair share) should be allocated to any
single CMS group, but for most VOs it makes no difference. Yet it's
nice to have the groups at hand in case it becomes necessary to
regulate the fairshares in a bit more detail.
Cheers,
Daniela
On 3 August 2012 16:18, Stephen Burke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Stephen Jones [mailto:[log in to unmask]] said:
>> That's the can of worms. One way to put the lid back on is to use both
>> the pattern and the CIC FQANs (where they don't conflict). At least
>> that way the VO gets what it bargains for, and if the VO gets it wrong
>> then it ends up with a viable set of FQANs anyway (via the pattern).
>
> There's another aspect to it - this is about mapping FQANs to unix groups, but it will only mean anything if the scheduler treats the groups as different in some way. Assuming that most sites use PBS/maui, what's the default configuration of the fairshares? If every VO user is treated equally regardless of group then the group mapping will be irrelevant. (For sgm jobs you ideally want a high priority but a low limit on the number of running jobs - is that a default, or documented somewhere?)
>
> Stephen
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
--
Sent from the pit of despair
-----------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask]
HEP Group/Physics Dep
Imperial College
Tel: +44-(0)20-75947810
http://www.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/~dbauer/
|