So you can do positive matches via sbatch constraint, but what would be nice is to be able to do a negative match. So exclude certain features from run. So lets say for instance that you have a backfill queue but you don't want to run on old hardware, so you say --constraint="!westmere". However, you don't really care what other version of hardware you run on. A negative match would be really handy for these situations.
Hey Paul - I'm shifting this back to Sev4 for a bit; Bugzilla is rigged to automatically force Sev5 requests there so we get a chance to perform some initial triage before adding it the the (rather large) list of potential enhancements. That also helps make sure we're aware of it, and (in a lot of other cases) that there isn't something already in place to address that. Especially as our workflow for Sev5 is a bit different than Sev1-4. - Tim
Ah okay. I saw it get filed as a Sev4 and I was confused as this is definitely not urgent, just a case we just ran into that would be a nice to have. -Paul Edmon- On 6/7/2017 12:37 PM, bugs@schedmd.com wrote: > Tim Wickberg <mailto:tim@schedmd.com> changed bug 3875 > <https://bugs.schedmd.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3875> > What Removed Added > Assignee support@schedmd.com tim@schedmd.com > Severity 5 - Enhancement 4 - Minor Issue > > *Comment # 1 <https://bugs.schedmd.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3875#c1> on bug > 3875 <https://bugs.schedmd.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3875> from Tim Wickberg > <mailto:tim@schedmd.com> * > Hey Paul - > > I'm shifting this back to Sev4 for a bit; Bugzilla is rigged to automatically > force Sev5 requests there so we get a chance to perform some initial triage > before adding it the the (rather large) list of potential enhancements. > > That also helps make sure we're aware of it, and (in a lot of other cases) that > there isn't something already in place to address that. Especially as our > workflow for Sev5 is a bit different than Sev1-4. > > - Tim > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > You are receiving this mail because: > > * You reported the bug. >
I would like to see this feature as well. Posting in hope to increase the priority of its implementation ;-)
It's not a great solution, but this could probably be handled by a job_submit plugin today, although any change to the configured features would necessitate changing the plugin. https://slurm.schedmd.com/job_submit_plugins.html The earliest this _might_ land in slurm would be the version 17.11 release, but I don't know if that will be possible.
I was just about to file a new enhancement request for this too. We have the same use case as Paul, where users have codes targeting specific CPU architectures, and want to avoid nodes that don't support specific CPU instructions. Right now, for instance, to request a node with AVX2 on Sherlock, the constraint looks like: -C "[CPU_GEN:HSW|CPU_GEN:BDW|CPU_GEN:SKX]" It would certainly be easier for users if they could just do -C "!CPU_GEN_IVB" In other words, we would very much like this too. :) Cheers, -- Kilian
Hi! I know this is old, but this is still an actively requested feature from our users. Is there any chance to see this coming in a not-too-distant future? Moe mentioned 17.11, but... :) Thanks! -- Kilian
We will also love to see this feature implemented.
Yes this feature is required and we would like to see it implemented! Thanks, Durai
I agree this would be a convenient extension of the existing syntax, but unfortunately our development slate for 20.11 is full at this time. If a site is interesting in sponsoring this for the 21.08 release please contact me, otherwise we may or may not get to handle this in that timeframe. Alternatively, if someone wishes to propose a patch to add this syntax we're always happy to review external contributions. One implementation note should someone want to propose a patch for this - due to how bash interprets ! (when left unescaped, or inside double-quotes), the syntax I'd expect to adopt is "~" for the NOT operator. - Tim
*** Ticket 13870 has been marked as a duplicate of this ticket. ***
Hi, We may have an interest in such feature as well. Our use case would be to exclude nodes with NVIDIA MIG GPUs due to some limitations [1]. In our setup, the nodes with MIG GPUs have the `Feature=mig`, so `--contraint=~mig` would be perfect. [1] https://docs.nvidia.com/datacenter/tesla/mig-user-guide/index.html#app-considerations
Expressing support for such a feature. Since the minimal set of Booleans is {AND, OR, NOT}, adding the missing NOT would be an extremely useful change.
