At least in our setup, users can see their own scripts by doing sacct -B
-j JOBID
I would make sure that the scripts are being stored and how you have
PrivateData set.
-Paul Edmon-
On 10/2/2023 10:57 AM, Davide DelVento wrote:
I deployed the job_script archival and it is working, however it can
be queried only by root.
A regular user can run sacct -lj towards any jobs (even those by other
users, and that's okay in our setup) with no problem. However if they
run sacct -j job_id --batch-script even against a job they own
themselves, nothing is returned and I get a
slurmdbd: error: couldn't get information for this user (null)(xxxxxx)
where xxxxx is the posix ID of the user who's running the query in the
slurmdbd logs.
Both configure files slurmdbd.conf and slurm.conf do not have any
"permission" setting. FWIW, we use LDAP.
Is that the expected behavior, in that by default only root can see
the job scripts? I was assuming the users themselves should be able to
debug their own jobs... Any hint on what could be changed to achieve this?
Thanks!
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:48 AM Davide DelVento
<davide.quan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fantastic, this is really helpful, thanks!
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 12:05 PM Paul Edmon
<ped...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
Yes it was later than that. If you are 23.02 you are good.
We've been running with storing job_scripts on for years at
this point and that part of the database only uses up 8.4G.
Our entire database takes up 29G on disk. So its about 1/3 of
the database. We also have database compression which helps
with the on disk size. Raw uncompressed our database is about
90G. We keep 6 months of data in our active database.
-Paul Edmon-
On 9/28/2023 1:57 PM, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
Sorry for the duplicate e-mail in a short time: do you know
(or anyone) when the hashing was added? Was planning to
enable this on 21.08, but we then had to delay our upgrade to
it. I’m assuming later than that, as I believe that’s when
the feature was added.
On Sep 28, 2023, at 13:55, Ryan Novosielski
<novos...@rutgers.edu> <mailto:novos...@rutgers.edu> wrote:
Thank you; we’ll put in a feature request for improvements
in that area, and also thanks for the warning? I thought of
that in passing, but the real world experience is really
useful. I could easily see wanting that stuff to be retained
less often than the main records, which is what I’d ask for.
I assume that archiving, in general, would also remove this
stuff, since old jobs themselves will be removed?
--
#BlackLivesMatter
____
|| \\UTGERS,
|---------------------------*O*---------------------------
||_// the State | Ryan Novosielski -
novos...@rutgers.edu
|| \\ University | Sr. Technologist - 973/972.0922 (2x0922)
~*~ RBHS Campus
|| \\ of NJ | Office of Advanced Research Computing -
MSB A555B, Newark
`'
On Sep 28, 2023, at 13:48, Paul Edmon
<ped...@cfa.harvard.edu> <mailto:ped...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
Slurm should take care of it when you add it.
So far as horror stories, under previous versions our
database size ballooned to be so massive that it actually
prevented us from upgrading and we had to drop the columns
containing the job_script and job_env. This was back
before slurm started hashing the scripts so that it would
only store one copy of duplicate scripts. After this point
we found that the job_script database stayed at a fairly
reasonable size as most users use functionally the same
script each time. However the job_env continued to grow
like crazy as there are variables in our environment that
change fairly consistently depending on where the user is.
Thus job_envs ended up being too massive to keep around and
so we had to drop them. Frankly we never really used them
for debugging. The job_scripts though are super useful and
not that much overhead.
In summary my recommendation is to only store job_scripts.
job_envs add too much storage for little gain, unless your
job_envs are basically the same for each user in each location.
Also it should be noted that there is no way to prune out
job_scripts or job_envs right now. So the only way to get
rid of them if they get large is to 0 out the column in the
table. You can ask SchedMD for the mysql command to do this
as we had to do it here to our job_envs.
-Paul Edmon-
On 9/28/2023 1:40 PM, Davide DelVento wrote:
In my current slurm installation, (recently upgraded to
slurm v23.02.3), I only have
AccountingStoreFlags=job_comment
I now intend to add both
AccountingStoreFlags=job_script
AccountingStoreFlags=job_env
leaving the default 4MB value for max_script_size
Do I need to do anything on the DB myself, or will slurm
take care of the additional tables if needed?
Any comments/suggestions/gotcha/pitfalls/horror_stories to
share? I know about the additional diskspace and
potentially load needed, and with our resources and
typical workload I should be okay with that.
Thanks!
