JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for TB-SUPPORT Archives


TB-SUPPORT Archives

TB-SUPPORT Archives


TB-SUPPORT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TB-SUPPORT Home

TB-SUPPORT Home

TB-SUPPORT  September 2013

TB-SUPPORT September 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Technical Meetings

From:

Andrew Lahiff <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:40:29 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (226 lines)

Isn't this what might happen once the production factories are upgraded to v3, which supports partitionable slots?

Regards,
Andrew.

-----Original Message-----
From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Colling
Sent: 19 September 2013 14:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Technical Meetings

Hi Alistair,

In CMS we are planning for an arbitrary number of cores and back filling with even single core jobs, but we are rather worried about inefficiencies that this might bring in. As far as I am aware this is at the planing/implementing/testing phase rather than production. However, Stuart's replacement Alex, will be working on the scheduling aspects of this.


Best,
david


On 19/09/13 11:56, Alastair Dewhurst wrote:
> Hi
>
> AthenaMP, ATLAS multi-process software is being designed to use any 
> number of cores.  However all the ATLAS multi-core queues setup across 
> the grid so far have been configured to specify 8 cores.
>
> While I am afraid I cannot find the documentation to back it up I 
> believe the WLCG 'agreed' that experiments should be able to request 
> 4n cores (where n is an integer).  Even if this wasn't agreed I 
> believe this is what ATLAS have adopted and for the moment are happy 
> with 8 cores.  I cannot predict what ATLAS will do with certainty but 
> for those sites that primarily support ATLAS, if they were going to 
> look into multi-core jobs, I would suggest working on ways to 
> dynamically allocate
> 8 core jobs when ATLAS occasionally need them, rather than setup a 
> dedicated whole node queue with dedicated resources.  The dynamic job 
> allocation was one of the requirements we look at when choosing HTCondor.
>
> Anyway it is certainly something to discuss at a technical meeting!
>
> Alastair
>
>
>
> On 19 Sep 2013, at 11:21, Sam Skipsey <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19 September 2013 10:48, Christopher J. Walker 
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 19/09/13 10:12, Andrew Lahiff wrote:
>>
>>         Hi,
>>
>>         For the record, for the new batch system at RAL we have
>>         multicore queues
>>         on our CREAM CEs (currently configured to use 8 cores).
>>         However, on the
>>         ARC CEs jobs can request exactly how many cores (and how much
>>         memory)
>>         they need rather than having to use a specific queue.
>>
>>
>>     I believe it is perfectly possible to do this with CREAM too
>>     (though I'm not sure we have it set up on all CEs.
>>
>>
>> Sure, it's basically how our MPI support works at Glasgow, IIRC, and 
>> we're entirely behind CREAM CEs.
>>
>>     IIRC, when I asked the experiments why this wasn't sufficient and
>>     they wanted to auto discover how big the slot they had got was, it
>>     was because on a 12 core node, if you have jobs requesting 8
>>     slots, they may actually end up on a 12 slot machine - and if they
>>     know this they can make use of the extra slots they discover they
>>     have.
>>
>>
>> Well, this is the difference between "whole node queues" and 
>> "multicore queues" (and between shared memory multicore queues and 
>> message passing multicore queues). Our MPI support provides precisely 
>> that - so a job can request any number of cores and it'll get them, 
>> but almost never all on the same node, as they don't need to be for MPI.
>> (This seems sufficient for biomed, and indeed any other entity that 
>> writes MPI-based code.)
>>
>> We don't support OpenMP style shared-memory parallelism where you 
>> require N slots all on the same node. (This makes the scheduling 
>> problem harder as has been discussed before.)
>>
>> ATLAS/CMS seem to want whole node queues, in which case, if you 
>> assume a whole node queue is sensible a priori, it is reasonable for 
>> them to want to know how big the node they'll get is in advance.
>> (This would be particularly pessimal for an 8 slot job arriving on a
>> 64 slot node, for example.)
>> We did have a whole node queue at Glasgow for testing (Andy Washbrook 
>> used this), but the scheduling was exceedingly pessimal (as running 
>> 10 jobs would offline 10 nodes, without checking how big the nodes 
>> were first... so if it hit a 64 core node...) so we turned it off.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>>
>>         This is how both
>>         ATLAS and CMS are running multicore jobs at RAL now. Condor is
>>         then
>>         responsible for scheduling the mix of single and multicore jobs.
>>
>>
>>     Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>         Regards,
>>         Andrew.
>>
>>         -----Original Message-----
>>         From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes
>>         [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>         <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Alessandra Forti
>>         Sent: 19 September 2013 09:57
>>         To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>         Subject: Re: Technical Meetings
>>
>>         Well that's for testing. If it goes in production it will be
>>         more than one node and most of the things that are keeping
>>         this back are operational i.e. how not to waste resources and
>>         how to do the accounting if a job requests a certain number of
>>         CPU or the whole node.
>>
>>         cheers
>>         alessandra
>>
>>         On 18/09/2013 18:18, Christopher J. Walker wrote:
>>
>>             On 18/09/13 17:22, David Colling wrote:
>>
>>                 Hi Alessandra,
>>
>>                 Yes they are indeeedee. I only know of bits and pieces
>>                 in the LHC
>>                 world but do know, for example, that our T2K
>>                 colleagues make
>>                 extensive use of them. The Imperial T2K people code
>>                 and debug locally
>>                 and then run on the RAL resources. This is proving so
>>                 successful that
>>                 we are considering adding a bigger node - perhaps to
>>                 the GridPP
>>                 cloud so that others could use it via OpenStack. These
>>                 are at the
>>                 *ideas* stage at the moment, but if we did would there
>>                 be any takers
>>                 or would we have just thrown away a chunk of money (or
>>                 rather given
>>                 it to T2K as I am sure that they would use them)?
>>
>>                 I guess that the question is what should GridPP be
>>                 doing about this?
>>                 I don't see it as our place to fund development in the
>>                 individual
>>                 experiments but should we be acting as a conduit for
>>                 best practise?
>>                 Organising Goofit tutorials? Interacting with EGI as
>>                 Stephen suggests?
>>                 What else? Is there a focus that we can develop with
>>                 very little money?
>>
>>                 I think that these are questions for next Tuesday
>>                 rather than Friday
>>                 but I will add a specific discussion to the discussion
>>                 agenda for this.
>>
>>             QMUL now has a single node MPI queue - Dan has more
>>             details. What more
>>             does one need?
>>
>>             Chris
>>
>>                 Best,
>>                 david
>>
>>                 On 18/09/13 14:41, Alessandra Forti wrote:
>>
>>                     Hi,
>>
>>                     multicore should become a reality at the end of
>>                     LS1. We should
>>                     definitely have it as an activity.
>>
>>                     cheers
>>                     alessandra
>>
>>                     On 18/09/2013 14:12, David Colling wrote:
>>
>>                         Hi,
>>
>>                         I am just drawing up an agenda and is it worth
>>                         having an item on
>>                         FTS3 (from Andrew L.)?
>>
>>                         Also the many and multicore activity. Is
>>                         somebody able to describe
>>                         what has been happening in these two areas? Is
>>                         this something that
>>                         we want to have as an activity in GridPP5?
>>
>>                         Best,
>>                         david
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         --
>>         Facts aren't facts if they come from the wrong people. (Paul
>>         Krugman)
>>
>>
>
-- 
Scanned by iCritical.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager