You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hello, I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm reading your paper and I came across a question that I would like to ask you.
Regarding the big-c experiment part, set up two queues, one configured with 95% of cluster resources dedicated to run short jobs, and the other configured with 5% of cluster resources dedicated to run long jobs. When the short job is submitted while the long job is running continuously, the short job queue will seize the resources of the long job queue at that time, is that right?
If so, the job-level preemption policy does not work at all, because each queue of the capacity scheduler will only run one task at the same time, and the others are in the blocking state, and the submitted short job can only preempt the one running in the long job queue. In this case, what is the point of proposing a job-level preemption policy?
Sincere thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello, I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm reading your paper and I came across a question that I would like to ask you.
Regarding the big-c experiment part, set up two queues, one configured with 95% of cluster resources dedicated to run short jobs, and the other configured with 5% of cluster resources dedicated to run long jobs. When the short job is submitted while the long job is running continuously, the short job queue will seize the resources of the long job queue at that time, is that right?
If so, the job-level preemption policy does not work at all, because each queue of the capacity scheduler will only run one task at the same time, and the others are in the blocking state, and the submitted short job can only preempt the one running in the long job queue. In this case, what is the point of proposing a job-level preemption policy?
Sincere thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: