[Beowulf] New member, upgrading our existing Beowulf cluster
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.
Bill Broadley bill at cse.ucdavis.eduThu Dec 3 18:19:08 PST 2009
- Previous message: [Beowulf] New member, upgrading our existing Beowulf cluster
- Next message: [Beowulf] New member, upgrading our existing Beowulf cluster
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Greg Lindahl wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 12:57:07PM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote: > >> If you've got a job running on there for a month >> or two then there's a fairly high opportunity cost >> involved. > > That kind of policy has a fairly high opportunity cost, even before > you factor in linked nodes. E.g. you see a system disk going bad, but > the user will lose all their output unless the job runs for 4 more > weeks... Indeed. You'd hope that such long running jobs would checkpoint. Seems like the perfect place for virtualization. Seems like for mostly CPU bound jobs the overhead is getting pretty low. Then you get all kinds of benefits: * Checkpointing * Migration * easy backfill Seems like it would be real popular with the admins. Anyone doing this?
- Previous message: [Beowulf] New member, upgrading our existing Beowulf cluster
- Next message: [Beowulf] New member, upgrading our existing Beowulf cluster
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
