Hi Chris, Have you tried setting the priority of the wow itself to 0? If you set the priority of the other QOS's to something like 1000 this should prevent a "free" job from being scheduled ahead of a non free job. I think you'll also want to set the various PriorityWeight* settings such that the QOS priority is weighted heavily enough to ensure it has the final say above all other factors. Perhaps you could set the QOS priority weight to be an order of magnitude above all other weights. Maybe this'll help: http://slurm.schedmd.com/priority_multifactor.html#general
Hope that helps! Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 17, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Christopher B Coffey <chris.cof...@nau.edu> > wrote: > > Hi, thanks for the reply! > > Unfortunately, that option only dictates how much time is counted toward > fairshare use. I have that set at 0, which works well for what it’s meant > for. > > But still I can’t think of a way to exclude an account from the extra > priority points by the various factors: partition, job size .. Etc. > > — > Christopher Coffey > High-Performance Computing > Northern Arizona University > 928-523-1167 > > > > >> On 2/17/15, 8:09 AM, "Mehdi Denou" <mehdi.de...@bull.net> wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Parhaps setting UsageFactor to "0" for this qos could do what you're >> looking for ? >> >> Le 13/02/2015 18:49, Christopher B Coffey a écrit : >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have this idea of a “free” account/qos. This account is preemptable >>> by >>> all other qos’. This account does not have any fairshare. It’s almost >>> complete. But this account still receives priority points from the >>> factors like: job size, partition, … Etc. >>> >>> Is it possible to have an account excluded from priority points given by >>> factor weights? Apologies if this should be obvious, I haven’t figured >>> it >>> out yet from the man pages. >>> >>> This free account could be default for special accounts like affiliates >>> with low priority. Or maybe folks want to preserve their fairshare >>> points >>> for debugging, short type jobs, or ones that checkpoint that can deal >>> with >>> being preempted. >>> >>> There is also no way to subtract priority points from qos’ with sacctmgr >>> from what I can tell. >>> >>> It looks like in a situation like this, the qos should have the >>> “NoReserve” flag set too, correct? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Chris >> >> -- >> --- >> Mehdi Denou >> International HPC support >> +336 45 57 66 56 >
