Re: distributed batch processing
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:46:24AM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Maybe, you want to check OAR (http://oar.imag.fr/).
OAR is a resource manager or (batch scheduler) for large
clusters. It's an alternative to PBS(+MAUI) , PBSpro, LSF, CCS or
Condor. It's suitable for productive plateforms and research
It's widely used, here in France.
> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:12:20PM -0700, Dale Southard wrote:
> > On May 11, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Drake Diedrich wrote:
> > >Debian really ought to have at least one packaged
> > >implementation of this (DQS was, but I couldn't keep it working).
> > As Josh mentioned, the Torque fork of OpenPBS is probably the
> > best bet. Torque is OpenPBS + FOSS extensions, including
> > re-implementation of PBSPro features. There are already some
> > debs available and there's at least one script floating around
> > to build deb packages.
> > It's probably also worth looking at the maui scheduler (which
> > runs on top of torque or other batch systems). Someone wiser
> > than I should probably browse the licenses at
> > www.clusterresources.com to verify that torque and/or maui
> > meet the Debian standards before any work is started.
> Debian Wiki on licence texts - OpenPBS and Torque both non-free.
> (Though this may not be authoritative, it is certainly persuasive
> As someone who has actually downloaded OpenPBS from Altair for
> business use - it was a nightmare and required pre-registration.
> If you go there now, you are asked to fill out a webform - which
> still recommends strongly that you get PBSPro: you may even have
> to sign up for an evaluation licence for PBSPro in order to be
> redirected to the OpenPBS download location.
> Torque is certainly more freely available - and has been packaged as a
> .deb - but is not part of the Debian archive. Google for torque and .deb
> and you should find it. The only reason it is non-free is because the
> licence is a) controversial and b) unclear as to its effect. [Torque
> took an earlier version of OpenPBS which appeared to be more liberal in
> its licence terms and forked from there: it is unclear which licence
> terms still apply - see the thread on debian-legal cross referenced from
> the Wiki entry.
> It's a shame: I'm almost tempted to write a letter to Altair to suggest
> that they should open source OpenPBS by removing the license restriction
> and then dual-license PBSPro such that commercial customers can buy
> support (in the same way that Aladdin did with Ghostscript et. al.).
> I'd also volunteer to package Torque if it were feasible to have it in
> the distribution proper.
Gilles Fedak Researcher INRIA-Futurs