On 2014-08-28 19:17, Rémi Palancher wrote: > I would be glad to have your insightful lights on this matter :) I would > also appreciate to get feedback from other people who have done other > tests with slurm and systemd!
Haven't tested anything yet, but with RHEL/CentOS 7 already available, I suspect it won't be long before people are starting to roll out clusters based on those OS'es. So the topic certainly deserves some attention, thanks for bringing it up! > The funny thing about all of this is that it will become totally > irrelevant with the upcoming releases of the linux kernel (3.16+) and > the ongoing effort on the cgroup unified hierarchy[3][4]! So if > modifications should be done in Slurm on cgroup management, it would be > wise to take this into account. > [3] http://lwn.net/Articles/601840/ > [4] > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt Seems that in the brave new unified hierarchy cgroup world cgroups must be controlled by communicating with the cgroup controller process (which would be systemd on systemd-using systems which should be most of them), rather than manipulating the cgroups fs directly. Systemd provides a D-Bus API for this, see http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/ControlGroupInterface/ That implies quite a lot of changes in the slurm cgroups support.. -- Janne Blomqvist, D.Sc. (Tech.), Scientific Computing Specialist Aalto University School of Science, PHYS & BECS +358503841576 || [email protected]
