 |
 |
Yeah it does but I assume (without actually checking) that that must be a small effect. On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Young, Charles C. wrote: > Don't know how big an effect it is, but doesn't bhosts include things like interactive machines like flora and yakut, farm masters, special machines like what ACD and Kavli have? Maybe we should filter on the known batch host names. > > Yes, it makes lots of sense to allow general use of BaBar (and in the future ATLAS) machines when they are idle for a long time. With beams in PEP-II, it's not clear there are many such BaBar machines these days... > > -- > Charles C. Young > M.S. 43, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center > P.O. Box 20450 > Stanford, CA 94309 > [log in to unmask] > voice (650) 926 2669 > fax (650) 926 2923 > CERN GSM +41 76 487 2069 > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [log in to unmask] >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On >> Behalf Of Stephen J. Gowdy >> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:38 PM >> To: randym >> Cc: atlas-sccs-planning-l >> Subject: Re: SLAC Batch system >> >> Hi Randy, >> I just look at all hosts with bhosts and counted total >> number of slots and used slots. If the BaBar machines are >> empty for an extended period can they not be added to other >> queues? I think we did that in the past. >> >> regards, >> >> Stephen. >> >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Randy Melen - SLAC/SCS wrote: >> >>> >>> Stephen, I don't think those numbers are right. Of course >> this is 2 >>> days later than your email so ... >>> >>> Anyway, right now when I look, I see the following: >>> >>> If I consider all Linux jobs and job slots, **including systems in >>> dedicated BaBar queues**, I see >>> this: >>> >>> there are 3743 jobs running in 4930 possible job slots, >> about 78% full >>> >>> But if I look only at the job slots available for general >> queue jobs, >>> then I see >>> >>> there are 525 jobs running in 538 possible job slots, about 98% full >>> >>> Anything over about 95% full is "goodness" since job >> termination and rescheduling etc. >>> probably takes a few percent. >>> >>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:35:07 +0100 (CET) "Stephen J. Gowdy" wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> I see there are very few busy CPUs (around 691 out of >> 5918) just >>>> now at SLAC. Can we increase the number used for ATLAS >> production? I >>>> guess I'm not sure how the single NFS server will deal >> with a higher >>>> load. Wei, do you have an idea of how far it can be pushed? >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> >>>> Stephen. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> /------------------------------------+-------------------------\ >>>> |Stephen J. Gowdy, SLAC | CERN Office: 32-2-A22| >>>> |http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~gowdy/ | CH-1211 Geneva 23 | >>>> |http://calendar.yahoo.com/gowdy | Switzerland | >>>> |EMail: [log in to unmask] | Tel: +41 22 767 5840 | >>>> \------------------------------------+-------------------------/ >>> >> >> -- >> /------------------------------------+-------------------------\ >> |Stephen J. Gowdy, SLAC | CERN Office: 32-2-A22| >> |http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~gowdy/ | CH-1211 Geneva 23 | >> |http://calendar.yahoo.com/gowdy | Switzerland | >> |EMail: [log in to unmask] | Tel: +41 22 767 5840 | >> \------------------------------------+-------------------------/ >> > -- /------------------------------------+-------------------------\ |Stephen J. Gowdy, SLAC | CERN Office: 32-2-A22| |http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~gowdy/ | CH-1211 Geneva 23 | |http://calendar.yahoo.com/gowdy | Switzerland | |EMail: [log in to unmask] | Tel: +41 22 767 5840 | \------------------------------------+-------------------------/