Adding slotsCount to machineInfo would destroy the separation between queue level and host level information. Different users could have different slotCount on the same machine. The information must be retrieved on queue level (we have the queueMaxSlotsAllowed()) method for that. Cheers Daniel On 11/08/10 16:01, Mariusz Mamoński wrote:
Hi all,
If we are talking about the monitoring session... what do you think about the idea of:
1. creating a new data struct MachineInfo with all the predefined machine attributes (e.g.: threadsPerCore) + "readonly attribute Dictionary drmsSpecific;" (an extension point) and providing one method: "MachineInfo getMachineInfo(in string machineName) for accessing all of them 2. adding a new attribute "slotsCount", which denotes the maximum number of single-process jobs that can run on given machine concurrently (use case: system administrator may either choose configuration where one process runs per physical core or hardware thread or choose choose any number that is totally independent from hardware configuration)
Cheers,
2010/11/8 Daniel Gruber <daniel.x.gruber@oracle.com>:
Ok. For simplicity we take 1 as default value with the drawback that we loose information if the SMT value is available (and correct) or not.
Regards,
Daniel
On 11/08/10 15:14, Peter Tröger wrote:
Hi,
I can agree to the new "threadsPerCore" attribute, but would prefer to have "1" as default value. From our understanding of a core, each one can always execute at least one thread. It would also allow to compute an estimation of the number of parallel threads, without looking on the specific numbers.
Best, Peter.
Am 08.11.2010 um 10:55 schrieb Daniel Gruber:
Hi,
in the MonitorinSession we have on machine level machineSockets and coresPerSocket. To be consequent we should also add threadsPerCore. At least OGE/SGE does support this. I added it into our spreadsheet. If this is not supported by a DRM/OS it could return 0 as value for unknown.
0 for coresPerSocket and machineSockets is not allowed since we should define coresPerSocket*machineSockets=="processors" in case a DRM or OS does not support this kind of architectural information. I suggest to leave it open for the DRMAA implementation if it maps the "processors" information to coresPerSocket or machineSockets in case of missing architectural details.
If there is no objection I'll take this as accepted.
Cheers
Daniel -- drmaa-wg mailing list drmaa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg -- drmaa-wg mailing list drmaa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg