[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: transfer and NFS homes

From: Thomas Sattler
Subject: Re: transfer and NFS homes
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:33:52 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0

> It is extremely hard to tell the difference between a power user
> maxing out a server and a novice doing something that overloads the
> server. I have several times used GNU Parallel causing a cpu load of >
> 1000, because it was faster to complete my task that way.

I'm curious about that: What kind of job is working better on an
overloaded system? To my knowledge reaching 100% load (not to be
mixed with n jobs in parallel on an n-core system) is the best
to be done.

> GNU Parallel is made for power users and that is its primary goal. If
> novices can use it aswell, then that is fine, but GNU Parallel will
> not shield beginners against mistakes if that makes it harder to use
> for power users.

I understand (and even advocate) that. I really hate the idea of
an "rm='rm -i'" shell alias, that can be seen on so many instal-
lations today. (In fact we have it here and I just don't dare to
remove it, as people might got used to it and might start crying
in case 'rm' would do what it had been written for.)

I just hoped that there was a way to make PNU Parallel a bit more
failsafe, without making it harder for power users.

>> In this case: Shouldn't GNU parallel detect a situation like
>> this ("transfer to NFS homes") and exit with an error?
> Definitely no. I use multiple systems, some have nfs-homes and I
> want to be able to --transfer to those.

I see, so transfer to NFS even is a desired usecase for you. OK.

For the records: I decided to preset PARALLEL on our hosts to
prevent accidently damage in the future:

  PARALLEL='--load 100% --nice 10 --noswap --workdir /scratch'

("--load 100%" and "--noswap" might be kind of redundant here)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]