By increasing the slurmdbd verbosity level, I got additional information, namely the following:
slurmdbd: error: couldn't get information for this user (null)(xxxxxx) slurmdbd: debug: accounting_storage/as_mysql: as_mysql_jobacct_process_get_jobs: User xxxxxx has no associations, and is not admin, so not returning any jobs. again where xxxxx is the posix ID of the user who's running the query in the slurmdbd logs. I suspect this is due to the fact that our userbase is small enough (we are a department HPC) that we don't need to use allocation and the like, so I have not configured any association (and not even studied its configuration, since when I was at another place which did use associations, someone else took care of slurm administration). Anyway, I read the fantastic document by our own member at https://wiki.fysik.dtu.dk/Niflheim_system/Slurm_accounting/#associations and in fact I have not even configured slurm users: # sacctmgr show user User Def Acct Admin ---------- ---------- --------- root root Administ+ # So is that the issue? Should I just add all users? Any suggestions on the minimal (but robust) way to do that? Thanks! On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 9:20 AM Davide DelVento <davide.quan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Paul, this helps. > > I don't have any PrivateData line in either config file. According to the > docs, "By default, all information is visible to all users" so this should > not be an issue. I tried to add a line with "PrivateData=jobs" to the conf > files, just in case, but that didn't change the behavior. > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 9:10 AM Paul Edmon <ped...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote: > >> 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> >>>> <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> >>>> <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! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
