Re: Batch systems: Torque, SLURM, other?
Hallo Manuel, a nice domain name you have.
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 13:11:02 Manuel Prinz wrote:
> I've to administrate a small cluster and I'm intersted in your opinion
> or experience with the resource managers/batch systems you use.
>
> ATM, there's Torque installed, and I'm not too happy with it, especially
> with the documentation. I've found a thread on debian-science about
> packaging SLURM [1] and had a look at it, and at a first glance it seems
> that more people care about it then Torque. But that may be wrong.
The PBS-derived systems are accepted. From my personal view you are wrong but
it would be on popcon to give us absolute numbers.
> The cluster is new, so there would be no problem with switching to a
> different resource manager. Our requirements are quite low, a default
> FIFO scheduler will do. (The only thing really needed is support of
> Prologue/Epiloque scripting, addressing single cores and two batch
> queues.)
>
> I've the impression that SLURM will be maintained more actively and
> during a longer time in the future. The better documentation probably
> will ease up things when I run into trouble or the requirements change.
> Torque's documentation is more like a tutorial without much explanation
> of what's happening and I don't feel very comfortable with this.
I keep nagging the Torque upstream developers about officiall supporting
Debian or to allow us promoting their work via Debian on a yearly basis. You
find very nice diff.gzs for Debianisation on the net and we have some on our
own. All I get in reply are "we are thinking about it - many thanks for your
offer"-replies. The license can be read in a way that one would not even need
to ask, but it is at least against my principles not to have asked and I IIRC
it is also against Debian's.
Hence, I personally think that SLURM should be the way to go, although I am
not prepared to change for the moment, not having the glimpse of an idea how
well it works.
Good luck!
Steffen
Reply to: