Dong H. Ahn

> Personally, I'm view the dynamic limits as more of a "throttling" or a "soft limit" since the system state can change to allow the jobs to run successfully in...

> Do we want to support muli-queue aware max aggregate resources per user on day 1? After our recent coffee time discussion, I thought that would require too much complexity...

> @dongahn: per your question on the coffee call about does Slurm make reservations for jobs that have exceeded a dynamic limit, the answer (AFAICT from digging through the source...

Large function, that is...

Thanks @cmoussa1: I believe you are referring to the following rows. | Limit Category | Multi-Queue | Limit | Mechanism | Handling | Day 1 | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | Dynamic |...

> @dongahn yes, those are the two rows I'm referring to! 🙂 I think since the attributes required could be found in @chu11's job-archive, they could be fed into the...

@cmoussa1: Thank you for furthering this discussion and sorry I'm coming at this late. > We talked two days ago about trying to design a set of static limits that...

> Job Size: the number of nodes/CPUs a job is allocated Partition: the factor associated with each node partition (batch, debug, etc.) Yeah, considering those two properties as the static...

> W/ respect to the formula ``` p = (PriorityWeightJobSize) * job_size_factor + (PriorityWeightPartition) * partition_factor ``` Is the proposal to use this as one of the sorting criteria at...

@cmoussa1: somehow this ticket has been morphed into a static priority factor discussion from a policy limit discussion. Perhaps we should move the priority factor discussion piece into a new...