I've got 8 linux boxes, what now
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Greg Lindahl lindahl at conservativecomputer.comFri Dec 7 14:08:18 PST 2001
- Previous message: I've got 8 linux boxes, what now
- Next message: I've got 8 linux boxes, what now
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 01:48:59PM -0800, Martin Siegert wrote: > At that time I had to make a decision about loadbalancing and a batch > queing system. I decided to have none of it. First off, you proceed to discuss why you don't like batch queues, but don't talk at all about LVS and other techniques for load balancing. That just means the user types "ssh cluster.sfu.ca" and they end up logging into the node with the lowest load. That's very easy to use. As far as your criticisms of batch queues, you don't have to set them up that way. You can set it up so that all jobs run immediately. That provides a load balancing function, and a central way to figure out your job status. It doesn't provide ideal use of resources in the face of oversubscription, but it can't be gamed by the users. Alternately, you can provide a couple of scripts that do nothing but (1) start a command line on the node with the lowest load, and (2) run ps on all the nodes and grep for that user's username. Same difference. The nice thing about the batch queue is that it also copes with an MPI cluster in addition to a big pile of interactive nodes. Or if you used Condor as your batch queue, you could add some desktop machines to the cluster, for additional oompf at night. greg
- Previous message: I've got 8 linux boxes, what now
- Next message: I've got 8 linux boxes, what now
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
