Bug 785215 - [RFE] allow schedd to claim multiple dynamic slots w/o negotiation cycle
Summary: [RFE] allow schedd to claim multiple dynamic slots w/o negotiation cycle
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise MRG
Classification: Red Hat
Component: condor
Version: 2.1
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
high
high
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: grid-maint-list
QA Contact: MRG Quality Engineering
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-01-27 16:40 UTC by Timothy St. Clair
Modified: 2016-05-26 19:12 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Rebase: Bug Fixes and Enhancements
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-05-26 19:12:07 UTC
Target Upstream Version:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Condor 2790 0 None None None Never
Condor 2802 0 None None None Never
Condor 2826 0 None None None Never

Description Timothy St. Clair 2012-01-27 16:40:47 UTC 
Description of problem:
Filling a pool with dynamic slots can sometimes be a utilization issue if the jobs are short lived, b/c it will have to go through multiple rounds with the negotiator.  Fix will be to allow the schedd to claim multiple dynamic slots.
Comment 3 Timothy St. Clair 2012-02-22 21:37:18 UTC 
Punting back because we've found issue with the modification and concurrency limits.
Comment 4 Timothy St. Clair 2012-02-27 20:41:05 UTC 
In scoping issues it seems possible that we can adjust cc-limits to take slot weight into account.
Comment 5 Timothy St. Clair 2012-07-11 15:57:45 UTC 
This exists in the 7.8 rebase, but there are still issues around cc-limits and we may want to open a separate ticket, and derive it from this one.
Comment 6 Timothy St. Clair 2012-07-13 15:53:02 UTC 
Concurrency limits are respected, but still require multiple negotiation rounds provided that: 

NEGOTIATOR_USE_SLOT_WEIGHTS = True 

(which is defaulted to enable this feature.)
Comment 10 Mike McCune 2016-03-28 22:39:30 UTC 
This bug was accidentally moved from POST to MODIFIED via an error in automation, please see mmccune with any questions
Comment 11 Anne-Louise Tangring 2016-05-26 19:12:07 UTC 
MRG-G is in maintenance only and only customer escalations will be addressed from this point forward. This issue can be re-opened if a customer escalation associated with this issue occurs.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.