Thanks for he advice Jason. :) I will bear this in mind.
br,
g
On 29 May 2013 19:16, Jason Swails <jason.swails.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:39 PM, ET <sketchfoot.gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > Thanks very much for the information! In the present situation it is only
> > me running the jobs, but I'm planning on getting TORQUE installed on some
> > of the department machines. In that situation, from what has been said,
> it
> > seems wise to not mention the PBS_GPUFILE and let the system allocate
> > resource accordingly. This should be ok as all the GPUs are the same and
> > thus I don't see a reason why someone would prefer one over another.
> >
>
> One thing to be wary of is whether or not a specific application uses the
> Torque API and will attempt to assign GPU based on the contents of
> PBS_GPUFILE (or if the Torque API even supports robust GPU selection).
>
> I'm not trying to convince you to use a different strategy (it's the same
> one I would probably employ). I'm just pointing out that no solution is
> 'ideal' for automating GPU load balancing in a scheduler context (the
> Kernel handles it automagically for CPU allocation), and you should be
> ready for any problems that may arise because of it.
>
> All the best,
> Jason
>
> --
> Jason M. Swails
> Quantum Theory Project,
> University of Florida
> Ph.D. Candidate
> 352-392-4032
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Thu May 30 2013 - 02:00:03 PDT
