Hide Forgot
1) remove groupUsed from negotiationTime and negotiateWithgroup The variable groupUsed was a place holder to accumulate usage information from the group "none". With "None" now a formal group, accountant.GetWeightedResourcesUsed (etc) is used to get usage information. If anything this is a code cleanup and a (small) performance issue. A bunch of code can be removed from negotiateWithGroup and any improvement will be good to have for users with negotiation rates set to 1 or something small. 2) I see some inconsistencies in use of accountant.GetResourcesUsed and accountant.GetWeightedResourcesUsed If weighted slots are turned off, these return the same value. If they are turned on, the values are quite different. Weighted slots are turned off with dynamic slots, but I think these should be made consistent.
(In reply to comment #0) I noticed that groupUsed has been removed upstream, so I'm anticipating we get that cleanup when we migrate to 7.6 for grid 2. I had used accountant.GetResourcesUsed() in the HFS-specific code path, since we are explicitly requiring non-weighted slots. On the other hand, any future enhancements of HFS for supporting weighted slots would require moving back to GetWeightedResourcesUsed(). I think that the new iterative logic for adapting to rejections and overlapping-pool will also enable weighted slots to work pretty well with HFS -- experiment for 2.x inclusion?
"I noticed that groupUsed has been removed upstream" It could be the variable was used in older HFS code, then removed, and then I put it back in for tracking usage for "none". I added it in: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=629614 Upstream wouldn't have this yet. I'm not sure there is anything that can be done to fix weighted slots (period) other than a rewrite that integrates "hfs" with negotiation. The problem is "ask for 1 slot and get 8". It's really not an HFS specific problem. It might work if we could convert a weighted slot to a partitionable slot on the fly, but the partitionable flag is at the startd.
What are the step to verify this issue, please?
(In reply to comment #3) > What are the step to verify this issue, please? These are code cleanup changes intended to make no change to functionality. In that respect, verification would mean making sure HFS works as it did before (excepting any new changes that do alter functionality).
Tested with: condor-7.6.1-0.5 Tested on: RHEL5 i386,x86_64 - passed RHEL6 i386,x86_64 - passed >>> VERIFIED